Installing extra RAM

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Endulini - 01 Apr 2006 21:09 GMT

Hi All,

I'm looking to increase my memory and have come across the infamous error
that means Windows 98SE throws a wobbly when more than 512MB is installed.
I've read the work-arounds but can anyone explain, do you still get the
benefit from having more than 512MB RAM? In my limited understand they seem
to be fooling/forcing the PC to accept that it has no more than 512MB
installed therefore is there any point in having more?

Thanks.

Reply to this Message

glee - 02 Apr 2006 04:36 GMT

Answered in win98.gen_discussion

Signature

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

> Hi All,
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Thanks.

Reply to this Message

NG User - 03 Apr 2006 06:14 GMT

I'm not sure what "Workarounds" you're talking about...since I only know of
one! That is to put an entry in the system.ini file under the vcache
heading which should be MaxFileCache=512000

As far as I know, no other settings are required. Since I have two systems
running Windows 98SE with more then 512MB in each, I know this to be true.

As long as you don't ask Mr. Gates about memory requirements, you will most
definately see an increase in system performance with more then
512MB....that is if you are working with files or applications which make
use of it. That is to say that if all you're doing with your computer is
surf the web and wordprocessing, then there is no need for more the 512MB of
memory.

HTH...

> Hi All,
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Thanks.

Reply to this Message

glee - 03 Apr 2006 16:28 GMT

Have a look here:
http://snipurl.com/om0b

Full Link:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/browse_thre
ad/thread/520519be293d9ab7/c61d54aeaa0fffab?lnk=st&q=group%3Amicrosoft.public.wi
n98.gen_discussion+insubject%3AIncreasing+insubject%3Amemory+author%3ARon+author
%3AMartell&rnum=1&hl=en#c61d54aeaa0fffab

Signature

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

> I'm not sure what "Workarounds" you're talking about...since I only know of
> one! That is to put an entry in the system.ini file under the vcache
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> >
> > Thanks.

Reply to this Message

NG User - 06 Apr 2006 03:56 GMT

Very good and accurate description of memory limitations and usage.
However, there is no explanation given for the relationship between
FileCache and available memory. I've noticed that applications and large
files open slightly faster the first time around and most definately faster
the second and third time around with my system using 1GB of RAM versus my
old setup of 512MB. Further more, neither setup causes Windows to use the
Virtual SwapFile ( which is to date still at 0KB ).

> Have a look here:
> http://snipurl.com/om0b
>
> Full Link:

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/browse_thre
ad/thread/520519be293d9ab7/c61d54aeaa0fffab?lnk=st&q=group%3Amicrosoft.public.wi
n98.gen_discussion+insubject%3AIncreasing+insubject%3Amemory+author%3ARon+author
%3AMartell&rnum=1&hl=en#c61d54aeaa0fffab

> > I'm not sure what "Workarounds" you're talking about...since I only know of
> > one! That is to put an entry in the system.ini file under the vcache
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> > >
> > > Thanks.

Reply to this Message

Ron Martell - 07 Apr 2006 05:58 GMT

>Very good and accurate description of memory limitations and usage.
>However, there is no explanation given for the relationship between
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>old setup of 512MB. Further more, neither setup causes Windows to use the
>Virtual SwapFile ( which is to date still at 0KB ).

Windows will always attempt to find some use, anything that might
possibly be of benefit, for every bit of the installed RAM. This
includes maintaining a large disk cache of recently accessed files so
that when (and it often is "when" and not "if") those files are needed
again the contents are already in RAM and do not have to be reloaded
from disk.

The reason why it is necessary to limit the size of the disk cache to
not more than 512 mb on systems with huge amounts of RAM is that
Windows will otherwise allocate more than 512 mb of RAM for this if
the RAM is available. However, under the segmented memory model used
in Windows 95/98/Me the 4 gb total x86 32 bit address space is
subdivided into 3 sections:
2 gb for application programs and user data files
1 gb for operating system files
1 gb for "system arena" including support function such as the AGP
video arpeture and the disk cache.

If more than 512 mb of this total 1 gb of address space is committed
to disk cache then it is possible that other users of this address
space will find that there are no available addresses within that
range that are not already in use. Result = crash.

Hope this is the explanation you were looking for.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Signature

Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

Reply to this Message

Jeff Richards - 09 Apr 2006 07:29 GMT

Just because the system crashes at 512Mb without the workaround doesn't mean
that it will be forced to use less cache when the workaround is installed.
The problem, and the limitation, applies to the address range that is
available to allocate to cache, if needed. Few systems would ever actually
allocate sufficient cache, even with 1Gb of RAM installed, to run up against
the limitation.

Signature

Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

> Very good and accurate description of memory limitations and usage.
> However, there is no explanation given for the relationship between
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> old setup of 512MB. Further more, neither setup causes Windows to use the
> Virtual SwapFile ( which is to date still at 0KB ).

Reply to this Message

freestonew@yahoo.com - 13 Apr 2006 23:36 GMT

hi all....

well i just posted this over in the 98 discussion, so i will, after
reading this, and the linked post over at that group, feel better. I
suspect that my game morrowind needs every byte of any ram that is
installed!!
==================

should I go from 512 megs of ram to 1 gig of ram?!

Oh I have one of those "fossils" windows 98se computers, and I do not
want to upgrade to xp on this computer. The game that my computer is
"dedicated' to, is morrowind with about 200 mods
playing with it, plus the two expansions!

I have now 512 megs of DDR 266 ram from Kingston.

[my system: athlon 2400xt, an asrock K7vt2 board, 40 gig HD, radeon
9600xt, audigy 2 zs
sound card.]

I read that windows 98se has "trouble" with ram over 512 megs, though a
clever vcache
number can be placed in the sys file. then there is even a fix for
the 1 gig or more.

my motherboard says that I can have two DDRs, of the same size, thus
512 each.
I see that office depot has 512 sticks for $49 after rebate, PNY brand.
or kingston about the same at the kingston site.

BUT IS THIS WORTH IT?!

I read 'dark" murmerings that i would effectivly have to reduce the
amount of ram down to 768 or even 512: what's the use and $100 gone!

but this Morrowind, oh oh so cpu-dependant and there are people on the
forums who have 2 gigs of ram and they wish that their winxp could use
even MORE!! this is how cpu-dependant this game is, even without the
mods and some of them are 100 megs in size or even 800 megs in size!!
[if I post this question in the morrowind forums; they all seem to have
winxp, and i get chided for not upgrading!]

So would all of this extra ram do me any good, versus the tradeoff for
the win98se problems that I might have with this?! or should i just
save the money and be happy with my 512 megs?

thanks....freestone

Reply to this Message

charlie tee - 02 May 2006 23:31 GMT

adding to much ram your mother board and prossesor can not handle more than
is recommended,if you add to much ram then in the long run this will end up
causing you more problems and a lot more cash.stick to 512,if you want more
memory add a slave drive as an 80 is only £45.plus one new lead to replace
the old one in your pc of £1-99,this will give you what you need.

Reply to this Message