Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Kelsenellenelvian

512 MB ram and above?

67 posts in this topic

there are similar drivers with vxd or sys extension. these are loading after the system is completely online. that means it will not help with too much ram. Maybe xmsdsk using dos4gw or similar stub will serve exactly as we want :)

by the way i am using 1gb of ram without any software fixes. system can normally boot, and install with this amount of memory. i was able to run computer with 1,128 mb ram without any sw fix.

also i have a question regarding to cluster size. Developer of XMSDSK is recommending so small cluster as possible. one web page with some tips about win9x optimizations is recomending to use swapfile on drive with at least 32 cluster size. the tip was recomended for classical HDD's and not for ramdisks.

i really dont know if i shall use ramdisk witn 32 or 1 cluster size because i use it with swapfile...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't adding an entry for XMSDSK in IOS.INI solve the compatibility mode problem? See IOS.INI TWEAKS, it is the second tip, just below CD-ROM/DVD MAX SPEED... Whatever the result, please keep us posted on it.

interesting.

might be worth a try.

This will not help because there is no protected-mode version of XMSDSK to replace the 16-bit version (no xmsdsk.vxd). Would it be possible to have an xmsdsk.vxd? I don't know, but there isn't one and the RAM drive is still very fast in compatibility mode.

Yes, diskless, of course! :yes: I do stand corrected! :blushing: It would be necessary to have some 32-bit acess compliant VxD to take over processing from XMSDSK, while using the FAT-16 virtual disk structures created by it. That's precisely what VMM.VxD does with HIMEM.SYS: it substitutes HIMEM'S code by its own, but uses the Handles table and other data structures created by HIMEM, instead of creating its own data structures. Yea, I know, I ought to think some more before posting... :D

@Offler: Win 98SE will recognize up to 1160 MB without any patching, as we know from last years' discussions. But that is as far as it can go, so any extra memory should be used as a XMSDSK ramdrive. But that means a ramdrive no bigger than 512 MB, so I contend there is no sense in using 32 kB clusters, when one can use 16 kB (as I do) or even 8 kb. The smaller the cluster, the more efficient the disk usage, AFAIK. Then again, YMMV... But do take a look at this interesting document, by Shrishail Rana, that I found I don't remember where on the internet. In particular, look at the Average Cluster Efficiency table on page 6. Update: I am now using 8kB clusters, since I replaced the "/c32" switch by "/c1", which instructs XMSDSK to use the smallest possible clusters automatically.

Fat32___File_Systems_Guide.pdf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx.

by the way i have reached 99 percent of free system resources after fresh boot. has someone reached 100 percent?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thx.

by the way i have reached 99 percent of free system resources after fresh boot. has someone reached 100 percent?

In a perfect world, maybe, but in the real world that's not possible.

The OS has to use that 1% for itself, even if "stripped down" to the max, without any extra "features" [read "bloat"] or background programs/processes.

HTH

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in a real world ... my system is not bloated, but not stripped down too much. everything what i need is available (approx 90 percent of common windows systems). because i have 1024mb of ram available i believe that windows is using approximately 10megabytes of memory with all drivers available...

only few background processes have been disabled (taskmon, taskman, mstask, powrprof, software bundled with drivers), and overall performance is not affected by it so much... but it is good to now that i have reached the topmost limit with memory optimizations, and now i can safely test some bugs with my system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thx.

by the way i have reached 99 percent of free system resources after fresh boot. has someone reached 100 percent?

Wow, the best I ever managed was 98%

What did you do / remove?

I imagine opening the Performance tab alone would take up resources preventing 100% being available.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

open msconfig and disable almost all. Powerprof.dll, taskman, taskmon, mstask, also i disabled smtp agent for intel lan card (i dont use smtp server), also i dont use active desktop... you shall find it in your system...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.