Windows 98 has a memory limit?

[Robor]

Originally posted by: networkman
I've been helping to clean out my friend Will's house for his wife; Will died back in July and was something of a packrat. I've already found a couple copies of Dos 6.22 and WFW 3.11 still in the original shrinkwrap!

And don't worry Robor - you may be getting old but you're a DC friend for life!

Thanks Rich! Ah the old DC days... I must confess I have only have the systems in my sig now and even then my server is almost always off unless I'm dumping backups to it. My laptop is usually off as well unless like now when I'm at work.

 

[Stumps]

hmmm, I guess Link19 must of got his ticket on the SS Garbage Scow, about time I say.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: networkman
True enough. But *if* Nocturnal's client is like many of us, he's somewhat limited financially

He could sell some of his RAM.

 

[uberman]

Seeing as how WIN98 is recieving negative commentary.

Win98SE is awesome. I've got too much money invested in software. Win98SE has great support for themes. I get tired of the same GUI. I use a utility called End It All, with one click I can kill all programs except Explorer and Systray and can devote all resources to one program or task.

WINXP doesn't support some programs. I find it crashes more or as much as WIN98SE. I'm aware of the superiority of NTFS over FAT32. The 512 RAM limit is a bummer.

WINXP drives me crazy with its actions. In WIN98SE numerous apps can be opened and they can be accessed instantly. In WINXP they get compressed into a tower after 6 or seven applications. This drives me crazy. Is there a way around this?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Dosent like anything about 512mb. I think it should simply only see 512, but apparently if theres more installed it can cause problems anyways.

Win 98 will deal with up to 1 GB. After that, it chokes on many systems.

This MS support bulletin addresses the issue:

"Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed

This article was previously published under Q253912

SYMPTOMS

If a computer that is running any of the versions of Windows that are listed above contains more than 512 megabytes (for example, 768 megabytes) of physical memory (RAM), you may experience one or more of the following symptoms:

• You may be unable to open an MS-DOS session (or command prompt) while Windows is running. Attempts to do so may generate the following error message:
  • 
    There is not enough memory available to run this program.
    Quit one or more programs, and then try again.
• The computer may stop responding (hang) while Windows is starting, or halt and display the following error message:
  • 
    Insufficient memory to initialize windows. Quit one or more memory-resident programs or remove unnecessary utilities from your Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files, and restart your computer.

CAUSE

The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.

On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine).

WORKAROUND

To work around this problem, use one of the following methods:

• Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less. For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
  • 
    108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size
• Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less.For additional information about how to use the System Configuration utility, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
  • 
    181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings
• Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB or less.

STATUS

Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed at the beginning of this article.

MORE INFORMATION

Vcache is limited internally to a maximum cache size of 800 MB.

This problem may occur more readily with Advanced Graphics Port (AGP) video adapters because the AGP aperture is also mapped to addresses in the system arena. For example, if Vcache is using a maximum cache size of 800 MB and an AGP video adapter has a 128-MB aperture mapped, there is very little address space remaining for the other system code and data that must occupy this range of virtual addresses.

When I was running Win 98 with a 1 GB of RAM, I edited my SYSTEM.INI file, I did this:

1. Open the SYSTEM.INI file in a text editor, such as Microsoft Windows Notepad.

2. Go to the [VCache] section.

3. Change the MinFileCache= and the MaxFileCache= settings to the desired value:

[VCache]

MinFileCache=65536
MaxFileCache=65536

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: uberman
Seeing as how WIN98 is recieving negative commentary.

Win98SE is awesome. I've got too much money invested in software. Win98SE has great support for themes. I get tired of the same GUI. I use a utility called End It All, with one click I can kill all programs except Explorer and Systray and can devote all resources to one program or task.

WINXP doesn't support some programs. I find it crashes more or as much as WIN98SE. I'm aware of the superiority of NTFS over FAT32. The 512 RAM limit is a bummer.

WINXP drives me crazy with its actions. In WIN98SE numerous apps can be opened and they can be accessed instantly. In WINXP they get compressed into a tower after 6 or seven applications. This drives me crazy. Is there a way around this?

If your WinXP crashes more than Win9x then you've got problems. I don't think I've ever had WinXP crash without either a hardware or driver problem (neither XP's fault).

If you don't like the way XP groups your programs in the taskbar right click on the taskbar, select properties, and uncheck the 'Group similar taskbar buttons' box. I don't like it either and it's one of the first things I do when I create my profile (as well as enable the 'Classic' start menu.

 

[uberman]

Robor, thank you for your feedback. Let me explain my experience with Windows XP. I have five workstations running Windows 98 second edition. I have one laptop running Windows XP service pack two. The laptop is a gateway with a Pentium 4, 3.08GHz, more than 1GB of RAM, widescreen, with bells and whistles. I bought this one year ago, it has been shipped back to gateway three times and they have yet to resolve the problem. The first problem was that the screen would go black, I would have to tilt the screen back-and-forth in order to make it light up again. They returned it but would not tell me if they sprayed it with contact cleaner or replaced the connection cable.

I've explained that I have five workstations. I can count on one hand the times I have used a paperclip to eject a CD or DVD. With this gateway laptop, I've had to use a paperclip to eject the CD or DVD over 70 times. Gateway replaced the DVD writer. Since they have replaced it, I've had to use a paperclip to eject the CD or DVD over 60 times and have had to restart the system each time.

In the past I've had the screen go blank. Now the screen pulsates from light to dark after Gateway's repair. I called them today but they refused to answer their telephones. I am now drafting a letter to their CEO to see that this problem is handled.

So I believe what you were saying was correct, there is a hardware issue. I build desktops but I don't build laptops. Gateway computers has pathetic support. What I really mean is that they can't correct a problem correctly.

This laptop with Windows XP has been returned to them three times. It has yet to work correctly.

I'm a builder, people are often asking me to build a computer for them. What I have done is to configure systems for them on Gateway's web site. Because I've worked on many computers I've found Gateways to be fairly well-made. However, my opinion has changed. I feel bad for the people who?ve I've configured Gateway computers for. Gateway seems inept at problem-solving.

Robor, I believe you are correct, I have a hardware problem that is not been solved by the manufacturer.

Thank you for your advice on Windows XP, I will try to fix so that my applications don't end up as one tower rather than easily accessible programs. Thanks.

 

[uberman]

Robor said, If you don't like the way XP groups your programs in the taskbar right click on the taskbar, select properties, and uncheck the 'Group similar taskbar buttons' box. I don't like it either and it's one of the first things I do when I create my profile (as well as enable the 'Classic' start menu.

Thanks, your fix worked, that has driven me crazy for 12 months.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: sourceninja
You know what, anyone got a copy of win 3.1? I want to run it on my new macbook pro.

I have a full copy of Windows for Workgroups, 3.11, in the original box.....

Are you serious? You wouldn't happen to know where I can obtain a copy with box and all would you?

 

[Solema]

If I were you Nocturnal, I'd try to convince the guy to pony up the measly $70 and get an OS that can actually use the 2GB of RAM he has. If he can afford 2GB of DDR he can in all likelyhood afford Windows XP OEM or 2000 OEM.

Why spend $200 on 2GB of DDR (or around that price) and use an OS that won't even see more than 25% of it?

I've told clients who've tried to get me to do similar things how flat-out stupid their ideas were, and explained why. At the end of the day, they've always sided with rational thought.

 

[SoulAssassin]

Originally posted by: uberman
I'm a builder, people are often asking me to build a computer for them. What I have done is to configure systems for them on Gateway's web site. Because I've worked on many computers I've found Gateways to be fairly well-made. However, my opinion has changed. I feel bad for the people who?ve I've configured Gateway computers for. Gateway seems inept at problem-solving.

IMHO Gateway quality went south several years ago. I have a friend who was a manager at one of the retail stories and he's told me some good stories. I would stay far, far away. Dell, while far from perfect, is a much better choice.

 

[uberman]

Soulassassin you are probably right concerning the quality of the gateway today as opposed to three or four years ago. I'm usually working on three or four-year-old computers reinstalling the OS or adding a card and some drivers.

I'm concerned about Dell though, their hardware is proprietary. I have tried to buy Dell systems before and several times they've refused to sell the system they had online. I get drawn to their ad by a post in the hot deals forum and then they bait and switch, or refuse to offer the deal they posted online. One time it was with an inexpensive tower, they said they don't have any more and would not honor the posted ad. Another time it was with the DLP projector, they said because it was in the small business section that I would not be able to purchase it. I had a business but they said I was ineligible.

That's just my experience.

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: networkman
DasFox has been very polite and open to other views. He also strikes me as someone with a bit more knowledge and experience than.. some other(s).

Ohh I'm tickled PINK

Well the thing is, yes I know people can be strapped for money, and need to use what they can, and as someone said before;

"good on you for not being a sheep like everyone else running to XP"

My reply to that is, this has nothing to do with that.

If the needs are for anything other then play, and needed for business, then running this system is a very unwise choice, and someone needs to consider at least looking at Win2k.

Instability, FAT32, Lack Of Services, Security, System File Protection, Lack of Software Compatibility, these are just a few to name amongst many more, why one shouldn't even bother with Win98, or SE, and don't even bring up ME, the worst system built, and micorsofot will even tell you so.

I'm sure Win2k can be bought OEM very cheap if one looks hard enough.

ALOHA

 

[DasFox]

And in reply to uberman, XP the OS is more stable then Win98 ever could hope to be. There is no way XP will ever crash as much as Win98, and if you are experiencing many crashes in XP, then either your bios isn't setup correct, or a bad bios that needs a flash, hardware issues, or XP has issues with the types of software you are running, and the softwares drivers, libraries, etc... are causing problems not XP, or your system resources are being sucked up.

I've run XP since the day it came out, and I've only had 4-5 crashes in all these years and in most cases this was bad drivers that caused the problems, the other problem I had once was a memory OC issue that caused a blue screen.

XP can run as stable as UNIX/LINUX, and I STRESS the word CAN, IF someone knows what they are doing. Please don't flame me on this anyone, I've been running Unix/Linux systems 10 years, and my XP box runs as stable as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Slackware, etc.... You name it I've run just about every major name in Linux and BSDs.

Sorry don't mean to seem like I'm bragging or anything, I'm just saying I know for a fact through experience, and speak from it, and not some hype. Bottom line is if your good with XP then it runs great, and all the problems people have with this system is due to a lack of experience is all.

XP can run as good as anything out there, it just depends on whos hands are on it is all. Now me given a choice, I'm a Unix Geek

ALOHA