 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 98 / Performance / September 2007RAM upgrade
After using W98SE for several years I am still a happy user. My system came with a RAM capacity of 128mb. If I increase the capacity by adding (2) 256mb sticks, what position should they be placed ? There are (3) slots with the 128 stick in the first slot. Also, in my research, there has been mention of placing a line in the system.ini>vcache of MaxFile=512000. These mentions have usually been in circumstances where the user was trying to utilize more than 1GB of RAM. Is this also advisable in my application, or, should I wait to see if there are any problems created by the addition of the 512mb first? Looking to be an even happier user. Input will be appreciated.  SignatureManny T. I would put the new RAM in the first two slots, leave the 128 stick out. Try the computer, run some tests (RAM tests) and otherwise make sure it's running OK. You can *try* adding the 128 MB stick after making sure the two new ones work, but it will likely cause problems, and it will take you *over* 512 MB, which is where other problems kick in. For MORE than 512 MB of RAM, you need to add this to System.ini [vcache] (this line may already be there) MaxFileCache=524288 For more than 1GB of RAM, there is another setting that needs to be set, but you aren't going there. SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User www.grystmill.com > After using W98SE for several years I am still a happy user. My system > came [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > first? > Looking to be an even happier user. Input will be appreciated. Have been using just the two 256mb sticks as you recommended and all seems to running pretty good. Thanks. SignatureManny T. > I would put the new RAM in the first two slots, leave the 128 stick out. Try > the computer, run some tests (RAM tests) and otherwise make sure it's [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > first? > > Looking to be an even happier user. Input will be appreciated. Well, though I don't think it will give you much more in the way of performance, you can now try adding back the old stick and see how that works. Just remember to add that MaxFileCache setting to the System.ini file. SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User www.grystmill.com > Have been using just the two 256mb sticks as you recommended and all seems > to [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> > first? >> > Looking to be an even happier user. Input will be appreciated. What util would show that all 1 mb of RAM is actually being used? Is it worth the effort to create a grass roots petition to get MSoft to modernize Win 98 SE leaving out the phone-home, spy, permissions, etc and adding in AV updates, 2 mb RAM, 750 GB HDs, better ScanDisk & Defrag (Me), OK load to 3 personal computers, and keeping DOS. No, i don't think that Me and 2000 is the answer. pls list other improvements needed. Can it be done and sell these CDs for $25-35? ssome > I would put the new RAM in the first two slots, leave the 128 stick out. Try > the computer, run some tests (RAM tests) and otherwise make sure it's [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > -- > > Manny T. 2 GB RAM > What util would show that all 1 mb of RAM is actually being used? > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > > -- > > > Manny T. MS no longer supports W98 and a petition will not change that I'm afraid. SignatureRegards Ron Badour MS MVP 1997 - 2007 > What util would show that all 1 mb of RAM is actually being used? > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> > -- >> > Manny T. Yea, we know, but... maybe a world wide petition. looks like 30% of users still use win 98 FAT32 is plenty and many of my friends still use DOS apps, i use one dbase for my books. we are not all gamers > MS no longer supports W98 and a petition will not change that I'm afraid. > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > >> > -- > >> > Manny T. You are mistaken. Of internet users, less than 1% use Windows 98. MUCH less than any other OS that's been out since 98 came out (MSDOS and earlier versions of Windows aren't even mentioned.) Yes, I know that's only internet users, but there's a fair extrapolation, since most business systems these days are Win2k or WinXP, and those comprise the vast majority of non-internet machines (speaking only of Windows systems.) http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp You're beating a dead horse, but if that's what turns your crank, fine. Just don't expect the world to care much about it. If you want to use 98, there's nothing stopping you, just like there's nothing stopping you from using DOS 6.22, Windows 3.11 or Windows 95 or any other OS. But you'll get laughed out of court if you demand that the world, particularly applications developers, cater to your anachronistic whims. SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User www.grystmill.com > Yea, we know, but... > maybe a world wide petition. looks like 30% of users still use win 98 [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >> >> > -- >> >> > Manny T. > You are mistaken. Of internet users, less than 1% use Windows 98. I've seen stats indicating 2% as of July 2007. > MUCH less than any other OS that's been out since 98 came out I believe that there were versions of Linux back in 1998, and naturally there was unix, win 3.x and win-98. Win-98 use is currently used more than any of those, not "MUCH less". > http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp Which tracks only hits to that web domain. This tracks hits to all domains using this reporting and stats service: http://www.thecounter.com/stats/ I've just plotted all the 15 OS's they track (plotted going back to June 2006). I see a few interesting things: - MAC use jumped from 3% to 4% in Nov/2006 (but in general there is no general trend to the change) - Win-98 use was 5% in June 2006 and is 2% in July 2007 (basically, it's currently dropping at the rate of 1% every 7 months, so it should hit 1% in March 2008) - Linux is basically static, somewhere between .25 and .5% - Win-NT was less than Linux up until February 2007, when it started to climb 1% per month. I wonder if this is an error and this is really Vista being mis-identified as NT. - XP peaked at 84% in January 2007, and has been declining at 0.5% per month since then. Win-2K has shown a very even decline from 8.5% to 5.5% (about 0.2% decline per month) - Windows ME has stabilized at 0.003% for the past 6-8 months. - Win 3.x and Win-95 are very similar (0.1 to 0.15%) but win-95 has fallen to 0.0025% for the last 4 months . > > Yea, we know, but... maybe a world wide petition. looks like > > 30% of users still use win 98 FAT32 is plenty and many of my > > friends still use DOS apps, i use one dbase for my books. > > we are not all gamers > But you'll get laughed out of court if you demand that the world, > particularly applications developers, cater to your anachronistic > whims. > "Ron Badour" <Sorry@NoAddress.com> wrote: > > > MS no longer supports W98 and a petition will not change that > > I'm afraid. Ssome, you've got to realize that people like Gary and Ron earn their living based on continuous change in operating systems driven by the Micro$haft business model. Without OS turnover, we would end up with a stabilization of systems and software, and the need for IT people to tinker and troubleshoot and fix things would slowly go away. So the MVP's here have a vested interest in seeing people and businesses migrate to each new MS OS. I don't know what the numbers there track but they plain and simply make no sense at all! There is no way that anyone is going to make me beleive that there are more Win 3.x surfing the net than Win95, Win ME and Vista combined! These numbers are bogus, I dare say that there are more Vista machines on the net than Win 3.x machines and I also dare say that there are most likely more Win ME machines than Win 3.x. 1. Windows XP 53496272 (81%) 2. Win 2000 3570762 (5%) 3. Win NT 3085183 (4%) 4. Mac 2621571 (3%) 5. Win 98 1426388 (2%) 6. Unknown 1047210 (1%) 7. Linux 399138 (0%) 8. Win 3.x 81427 (0%) 9. Unix 24958 (0%) 10. Win 95 17490 (0%) 11. WebTV 13251 (0%) 12. OS/2 2755 (0%) 13. Windows ME 1810 (0%) 14. Windows Vista 43 (0%) 15. Amiga 42 (0%) John > > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > MVP's here have a vested interest in seeing people and businesses > migrate to each new MS OS. if memory was right, i was quoting F Langa poll among his readers 30% still held onto win 98, all vers maybe 2-3 yrs ago. my point being that if cleaned up, updated and sans MSoft spying, SE would be fine for many of the users out there. Then it might jump back to 30%. We simply do not need 64 bit words or $600 video cards. hackers tend to jump on new OSs and leave 98 alone. many of us have never run a game, or ever intend to (although the kids that visit do); we prefer personal programming, record keeping and images/video of our kids & gkids. the latter of which is difficult in 98 esp editing video. businesses should always jump to needy markets. i appreciate savvy MSoft types helping out, but i never appreciated snotty little computer pricks ssome > > You are mistaken. Of internet users, less than 1% use Windows 98. > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > MVP's here have a vested interest in seeing people and businesses > migrate to each new MS OS. > if memory was right, i was quoting F Langa poll among his readers > 30% still held onto win 98, all vers maybe 2-3 yrs ago. Without downloading all the stats on the "thecounter.com" site, it seems that Win-98 was commanding first place with 40% as late as October/November 2003, with 2K in second place and XP in third place. Then in January / February 2004 a major change happened and XP took first place at around 50% and 98 fell to second place in the high 20's and falling a percent or two every month immediately after. Win-98 didn't spend much time in the 30% - 40% range at all. > my point being that if cleaned up, updated and sans MSoft spying, > SE would be fine for many of the users out there. Then it might > jump back to 30%. No argument from me, but the demise of all windows OS's is tied into the strategic availability of motherboard chipset drivers (primarily) and with video card drivers (secondarily). Those factors are no doubt heavily influenced (behind the scenes) by Micro$haft. > i appreciate savvy MSoft types helping out, but i never appreciated > snotty little computer pricks Not sure what you are talking about with your last comment there. > Ssome, you've got to realize that people like Gary and Ron earn their > living based on continuous change in operating systems driven by the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > MVP's here have a vested interest in seeing people and businesses > migrate to each new MS OS. Stick to something you know something about. I have been retired for 14 years and I do not make a living doing computer work. I have no vested interest in change. I stuck with W98 as a personal operating system as long as I could because it was a fun system to tinker with. New hardware requires new systems and I was forced to switch operating systems because there were no 98 drivers for my hardware. Then a lack of questions this year in the 98 newsgroups forced me to start trying to help XP users instead of posting solely in 98 groups. Ron Badour MS MVP 1997 - 2007 > I have been retired for 14 years and I do not make a living > doing computer work. It was my impression that MVP's were "acredited" with that designation based partly on the fact that they are employed in the IT field. Your impression is wrong--I retired from the Air Force and have never worked in the IT field. SignatureRegards Ron Badour MS MVP 1997 - 2007 >> I have been retired for 14 years and I do not make a living >> doing computer work. > > It was my impression that MVP's were "acredited" with that designation > based partly on the fact that they are employed in the IT field. > >> I have been retired for 14 years and I do not make a living > >> doing computer work. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Your impression is wrong--I retired from the Air Force and have > never worked in the IT field. It's not that my impression is necessarily wrong. It's just wrong in your case - and your case could be one out of a hundred. > It's not that my impression is necessarily wrong. It's just wrong in > your case - and your case could be one out of a hundred. While it is true that many MVPs do have a computer career field background, there are lots of MVPs who do not. Here are a few MVPs I am personally acquainted with and what they do/did for a living: Glen V, automotive service. Rick R, banker. Bert K, firefighter. Noel P, chemist. Brain S, general construction contractor. Ronnie V, crane operator. Tom F, teacher. Detlev D, engineer. RC W, CPA. Richard H, paramedic (after being an MVP for a few years, he went to work in the IT field). I have met a doctor, a surgical nurse and a 14-year old student who were MVPs. These are but a few of the people who do not work as a programmer or have an IT background. I am in a category called Shell User--you can check out people's backgrounds (if they listed them) here: https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvp.aspx?product=1&competency=Wind ows+-+Shell%2fUser Ron Badour > > It's not that my impression is necessarily wrong. It's just > > wrong in your case - and your case could be one out of a hundred. > > While it is true that many MVPs do have a computer career field > background, there are lots of MVPs who do not. Here are a few MVPs > I am personally acquainted with and what they do/did for a living: (list of a dozen people) > I have met a doctor, a surgical nurse and a 14-year old student > who were MVPs. According to Microsoft, you must be 18 years old to be an MVP. > These are but a few of the people who do not work as a programmer > or have an IT background. I'm not looking for an argument here, but by Microsoft's own count there are about 3500 MVP's world-wide. I would expect that several hundred of them do not earn their living directly by being programmers, computer tech's, admins, etc. But I bet the overwhelming majority do. > I am in a category called Shell User-- http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvp.aspx Why are there no OS-centric catagories? Such as a "Windows-98 MVP" ??? There was never a W95, W98, ME, etc., MVP category. We used to be lumped under DTS (Desktop Systems) which I seldom used because it was not descriptive enough to suit me. I used "W98 MVP" until a few months ago when I started making the majority of my posts in XP newsgroups. Since I don't like Shell User (used to describe all operating systems), I just use the "number of years" I have been in the program. SignatureRegards Ron Badour MS MVP 1997 - 2007 > Why are there no OS-centric catagories? Such as a "Windows-98 MVP" > ??? > snip < > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > programmers, computer tech's, admins, etc. But I bet the overwhelming > majority do. That might be true, but that's not the point you were making. You stated that you had the impression that "MVP's were "acredited" [sic] with that designation based partly on the fact that they are employed in the IT field.". Ron's point is that your impression was wrong, and that is evidenced by the fact that there are plenty of MVPs not employed in IT, or in some cases not in the workforce at all. Check out what MS actually says about the process: "MVPs represent a broad spectrum of Microsoft product users. They occupy many different professions including accountants, teachers, artists, engineers and technologists. " |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.