If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
John Doe wrote:
Troll. He wasn't very diplomatic about it but his point is essentially correct. = Win9x *can* work with more than 512 Meg of RAM. The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'; the= =20 workaround for which is to limit vcache to under 512 meg in system.ini. =20 Shep=A9 wrote: =20 =20 Path: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy. com!newscon03.n= ews.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodig y.com!news.glorb.com!ne= ws.addix.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Shep=B8 Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Subject: Ram: more vs. speed? Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:08:06 +0000 Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: Xns95931401AB0= Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 2WMKgymvez6BNalrFhvBQQFdocdexxSfWqSSTAJ7BPx= oWGrWI=3D X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553 Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:420881= On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:57:56 GMT There I was minding my own business and then John Doe wrote : "MustKillMoe-Wheee!" wrote: My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's= on=20 sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?=20 If he is using Windows XP, maybe not. If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use = more=20 than 512MB anyway.=20 ********!!!!! Another idiot post. --=20 Free Windows/PC help, http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html remove obvious to reply Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :O) http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm =20 =20 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
David Maynard wrote:
Win9x *can* work with more than 512 Meg of RAM. The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'; the workaround for which is to limit vcache to under 512 meg in system.ini. According to everything I've seen, your workaround for the vcache bug is slightly off, but in the context of the original post to this discussion group, this argument is bizarre anyway IMO. For what it's worth. Besides that bug, probably only in rare circumstances would anyone be able to use more than 512MB of RAM with Windows 98 due to the fact that resource memory is limited/fixed regardless of RAM size. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
John Doe wrote:
David Maynard wrote: Win9x *can* work with more than 512 Meg of RAM. The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'; the workaround for which is to limit vcache to under 512 meg in system.ini. According to everything I've seen, your workaround for the vcache bug is slightly off, but in the context of the original post to this discussion group, this argument is bizarre anyway IMO. 'Slightly off' how? http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;253912 There's another problem at 1 Gig RAM with shared memory video http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;311871 but we weren't talking about a gig, or more, of RAM. For what it's worth. Besides that bug, probably only in rare circumstances would anyone be able to use more than 512MB of RAM with Windows 98 due to the fact that resource memory is limited/fixed regardless of RAM size. Depends on what one is doing with it. Photoshop will happily fill up RAM for you. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
David Maynard wrote:
John Doe wrote: David Maynard wrote: Win9x *can* work with more than 512 Meg of RAM. The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'; the workaround for which is to limit vcache to under 512 meg in system.ini. According to everything I've seen, your workaround for the vcache bug is slightly off, but in the context of the original post to this discussion group, this argument is bizarre anyway IMO. 'Slightly off' how? I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to what that value should be. http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;253912 One of Microsoft's workarounds in that article is to remove all but 512MB of RAM. There's another problem at 1 Gig RAM ... http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;311871 Microsoft's workaround in that article is to remove all but 512MB of RAM. For what it's worth. Besides that bug, probably only in rare circumstances would anyone be able to use more than 512MB of RAM with Windows 98 due to the fact that resource memory is limited/fixed regardless of RAM size. Depends on what one is doing with it. There might be exceptions, you might even be able to produce an exception, but I didn't say there wasn't. If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft wouldn't be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
John Doe wrote:
David Maynard wrote: John Doe wrote: David Maynard wrote: Win9x *can* work with more than 512 Meg of RAM. The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'; the workaround for which is to limit vcache to under 512 meg in system.ini. According to everything I've seen, your workaround for the vcache bug is slightly off, but in the context of the original post to this discussion group, this argument is bizarre anyway IMO. 'Slightly off' how? I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to what that value should be. http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;253912 One of Microsoft's workarounds in that article is to remove all but 512MB of RAM. That's a misleading comment. Removing 'the problem' is always a 'workaround' (sic), as in "Doc, it hurts when I laugh. Then don't laugh", but you leave out the fact they first describe precisely the solution I stated: limiting vcache to under 512 Meg in system.ini. There's another problem at 1 Gig RAM ... http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;311871 Microsoft's workaround in that article is to remove all but 512MB of RAM. For one, it's specific to motherboards with shared memory video and, second, I'd suggest they say 512 Meg to avoid making the description unnecessarily long by repeating the other note about limiting vcache. Or else the title would be "Blue Screen Appears When You Start Computer with '512 MB' or More of RAM" rather than "Blue Screen Appears When You Start Computer with 1 GB or More of RAM." 512 Meg is the 'works here without further explanation required' solution. For what it's worth. Besides that bug, probably only in rare circumstances would anyone be able to use more than 512MB of RAM with Windows 98 due to the fact that resource memory is limited/fixed regardless of RAM size. Depends on what one is doing with it. There might be exceptions, you might even be able to produce an exception, but I didn't say there wasn't. I already gave you one, that you snipped out, on the same line with what you left in. If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft wouldn't be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM. Two problems with that conclusion. The first is, no, recommending it be removed to fix an otherwise unfixable problem doesn't suggest more than 512 Meg isn't 'useful', if it would WORK, and it would be a heck of a lot easier for MS to simply say so rather than provide a workaround in the first article. And the second problem is that Microsoft is not, as you claim, "explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM." It only looks that way with your selective ignoring of the top listed solution in the first article, limit vcache to 512 MB, and ignoring the specific hardware configuration, shared RAM video, that potentially conflicts with 1 GB in the second. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
David Maynard wrote:
John Doe wrote: .... I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to what that value should be. http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;253912 One of Microsoft's workarounds in that article is to remove all but 512MB of RAM. That's a misleading comment. Removing 'the problem' is always a 'workaround' (sic), I think "sic" usually refers to the preceding word, but Google shows 647,000 English messages for "workaround" including your usage a few posts ago. I've lost something in the translation. but you leave out the fact they first describe precisely the solution I stated: limiting vcache to under 512 Meg in system.ini. I hereby plainly state and acknowledge that is another workaround. A third workaround is to "Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512MB or less." That workaround is actually listed second in the first article, but it's the third mentioned here in this current thread. Two out of three workarounds listed on that page make more than 512MB of memory completely unusable. Those two are the second and third workarounds. I can see that the workaround you like is on top. However, the article says "use one of the following methods" and does not even hint that the workarounds are arranged in order of priority. Looks like there was a 33% chance that any of those three workarounds could have ended up being the first. http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;311871 Microsoft's workaround in that article is to remove all but 512MB of RAM. For one, it's specific to motherboards with shared memory video and, second, I'd suggest they say 512 Meg to avoid making the description unnecessarily long by repeating the other note about limiting vcache. I'm glad you provided the references. Or else the title would be "Blue Screen Appears When You Start Computer with '512 MB' or More of RAM" rather than "Blue Screen Appears When You Start Computer with 1 GB or More of RAM." 512 Meg is the 'works here without further explanation required' solution. Yes, it certainly is a mess. The first article explicitly states: "CAUSE ... Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle 1 GB or more of RAM. 1 GB or more of RAM can lead to potential system instability." That statement has nothing to do with shared memory. If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft wouldn't be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM. Two problems with that conclusion. The first is, no, recommending it be removed to fix an otherwise unfixable problem doesn't suggest more than 512 Meg isn't 'useful', if it would WORK, and it would be a heck of a lot easier for MS to simply say so rather than provide a workaround in the first article. Some sellers could not care less, wouldn't know better, and would gladly install whatever the mainboard can handle. In my opinion, it wouldn't be easier. And the second problem is that Microsoft is not, as you claim, "explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM." It only looks that way with your selective ignoring of the top listed solution in the first article, limit vcache to 512 MB, and ignoring the specific hardware configuration, shared RAM video, that potentially conflicts with 1 GB in the second. Two of three solutions in the first article are to disable or remove the extra memory. The only solution mentioned in the second article is to remove the extra memory. Shared video memory is mentioned in the first article as well, and that includes memory used by AGP video cards. Resource memory is fixed in Windows 98 and Millennium, regardless of RAM quantity, and most Windows 98 users are going to run into problems before using 512MB of system memory. Windows 98 and Millennium were not designed for more than 512MB of RAM. Have a great day (or night) anyway. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
John Doe wrote:
David Maynard wrote: John Doe wrote: ... I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to what that value should be. http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;253912 One of Microsoft's workarounds in that article is to remove all but 512MB of RAM. That's a misleading comment. Removing 'the problem' is always a 'workaround' (sic), I think "sic" usually refers to the preceding word, Yes. Sure does. but Google shows 647,000 English messages for "workaround" including your usage a few posts ago. I've lost something in the translation. I have no idea why you'd be doing google searches to find the word right in front of the "(sic)" since it's, well, right there in front of it. but you leave out the fact they first describe precisely the solution I stated: limiting vcache to under 512 Meg in system.ini. I hereby plainly state and acknowledge that is another workaround. That really settles it, you know. The question was whether windows98 could work with more than 512 Meg of RAM. Workaround 1: yes. The rest is moot. A third workaround is to "Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512MB or less." That workaround is actually listed second in the first article, but it's the third mentioned here in this current thread. Two out of three workarounds listed on that page make more than 512MB of memory completely unusable. That there are 2, or a thousand, ways to have it not work is irrelevant as it's not a 'vote'. One working solution is all it takes. Those two are the second and third workarounds. Since the point of having more than 512 Meg of RAM is to use more than 512 Meg of RAM I don't consider those to be 'workarounds', regardless of Microsoft calling them such, and is why I placed the "(sic)" after the term up above. I can see that the workaround you like is on top. The issue was whether Windows98 could be made to work with more than 512 Meg of RAM and I "like" it because it satisfies the goal. However, the article says "use one of the following methods" and does not even hint that the workarounds are arranged in order of priority. It doesn't need to 'hint'. In the first place, that's standard practice and, in the second, it's the one that accomplishes the goal. That's how I pick solutions. Looks like there was a 33% chance that any of those three workarounds could have ended up being the first. No, the logic of the order is obvious. The first one solves the problem, making the extra RAM usable, but requires a registry edit: a thing that some people are reluctant to do so some alternatives for the squeamish are in order. The second one is simply checking a box and typing in a number: simple, easy, and 'safe' but it renders the extra RAM unusable and, while you can do it 'right away', it's silly to leave the unused RAM in the box forever. The third one requires opening the box and messing with the hardware. http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;311871 Microsoft's workaround in that article is to remove all but 512MB of RAM. For one, it's specific to motherboards with shared memory video and, second, I'd suggest they say 512 Meg to avoid making the description unnecessarily long by repeating the other note about limiting vcache. I'm glad you provided the references. You are, no doubt, thanking me for the second link which has as the one and only sentence under "Symptoms:" If your computer has 1 gigabyte (GB) or more of random access memory (RAM) --- with shared video memory,--- the computer may boot to a blue screen error when you try to start Windows Millennium Edition (Me) or Windows 98. Or else the title would be "Blue Screen Appears When You Start Computer with '512 MB' or More of RAM" rather than "Blue Screen Appears When You Start Computer with 1 GB or More of RAM." 512 Meg is the 'works here without further explanation required' solution. Yes, it certainly is a mess. Hardly. The first article explicitly states: "CAUSE ... Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle 1 GB or more of RAM. 1 GB or more of RAM can lead to potential system instability." You'll notice that 1 GB is not the amount of memory the other poster was considering. That statement has nothing to do with shared memory. Try reading the whole thing instead of culling a phrase or two here and there like you did the last time. If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft wouldn't be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM. Two problems with that conclusion. The first is, no, recommending it be removed to fix an otherwise unfixable problem doesn't suggest more than 512 Meg isn't 'useful', if it would WORK, and it would be a heck of a lot easier for MS to simply say so rather than provide a workaround in the first article. Some sellers could not care less, wouldn't know better, and would gladly install whatever the mainboard can handle. In which case they'd have a problem and have to go look at the knowledge base and if it said to simply remove the extra memory the matter would be over. But, no... there is a workaround for using it. If it just plain didn't work or only worked, as you imply, 1/3 of the time it would be a lot less pain and misery for MS to simply say "don't do it." In my opinion, it wouldn't be easier. In my opinion that's an opinion derived simply for the sake of arguing. And the second problem is that Microsoft is not, as you claim, "explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM." It only looks that way with your selective ignoring of the top listed solution in the first article, limit vcache to 512 MB, and ignoring the specific hardware configuration, shared RAM video, that potentially conflicts with 1 GB in the second. Two of three solutions in the first article are to disable or remove the extra memory. Which, as I mentioned above, is irrelevant. The only solution mentioned in the second article is to remove the extra memory. Shared video memory is mentioned in the first article as well, and that includes memory used by AGP video cards. No, "shared video memory" is a specific term and does not 'include' AGP. Resource memory is fixed in Windows 98 and Millennium, regardless of RAM quantity, and most Windows 98 users are going to run into problems before using 512MB of system memory. Windows 98 and Millennium were not designed for more than 512MB of RAM. The issue was not 'most users', 'typical users', or what you, or I, think are the apps they should be using. The issue was whether Windows98 could work with more than 512 Meg of RAM and the fact of the matter is it can, with a registry change. Have a great day (or night) anyway. You too. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article , John Doe
says... I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to what that value should be. Anything below 512MB. If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft wouldn't be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM. That article was written when RAM cost ****loads. -- Conor Opinions personal, facts suspect. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
David Maynard wrote in
: The issue was whether Windows98 could work with more than 512 Meg of RAM and the fact of the matter is it can, with a registry change. I have 768MBytes of ram and Win98SE and it works great. See below for additional refences regarding using greater than 512MBytes of ram. Ask on the microsoft usenet groups and you will get a reply from a microsoft MVP indicating that all you need is the proper vcache settings for this to work. And yes, win98 will use all of this ram. I have verified this with SysMon many times. Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does need to be setup properly. http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#vcache http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm Try: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion microsoft.public.win98.setup One reponse from a microsift MVP: Because some programs will not run without a swap file. There is no need to tinker with it--there is no performance hit unless actual paging occurs and for most users with 512 mb, the swap file will not be used even though it exists. The performance tweaks that have existed for years are really somewhat useless as they were developed when computers were under powered (ram and CPU). There are some tweaks required when 768 mb or more of ram is being used. Here's some info on ram you might find helpful: 768 mb or more of ram: "Out of Memory" Errors with Large Amounts of RAM Installed 253912 http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=253912 This article contains instructions which basically say: add this line in system.ini, under [vcache]: MaxFileCache=512000 *************************** 1 gb or more of ram: Error Message: Insufficient Memory to Initialize Windows 184447 http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=184447 *************************** 1.5 gb or more of ram: Computer May Reboot Continuously with More Than 1.5 GB of RAM 304943 http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=304943 -- Regards Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98 Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour Knowledge Base Info: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
JS wrote:
David Maynard wrote in : The issue was whether Windows98 could work with more than 512 Meg of RAM and the fact of the matter is it can, with a registry change. I have 768MBytes of ram and Win98SE and it works great. See below for additional refences regarding using greater than 512MBytes of ram. Ask on the microsoft usenet groups and you will get a reply from a microsoft MVP indicating that all you need is the proper vcache settings for this to work. And yes, win98 will use all of this ram. I have verified this with SysMon many times. Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does need to be setup properly. Yes. That is what I've been telling John Doe but he keeps insisting on claiming it won't work with selective culling and misreading of the knowledge base articles. http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#vcache http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm Try: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion microsoft.public.win98.setup One reponse from a microsift MVP: Because some programs will not run without a swap file. There is no need to tinker with it--there is no performance hit unless actual paging occurs and for most users with 512 mb, the swap file will not be used even though it exists. The performance tweaks that have existed for years are really somewhat useless as they were developed when computers were under powered (ram and CPU). There are some tweaks required when 768 mb or more of ram is being used. Here's some info on ram you might find helpful: 768 mb or more of ram: "Out of Memory" Errors with Large Amounts of RAM Installed 253912 http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=253912 This article contains instructions which basically say: add this line in system.ini, under [vcache]: MaxFileCache=512000 *************************** 1 gb or more of ram: Error Message: Insufficient Memory to Initialize Windows 184447 http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=184447 *************************** 1.5 gb or more of ram: Computer May Reboot Continuously with More Than 1.5 GB of RAM 304943 http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=304943 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I still don't completly understand FSB.... | legion | Homebuilt PC's | 7 | October 28th 04 03:20 AM |
my new mobo o/c's great | rockerrock | Overclocking AMD Processors | 9 | June 30th 04 08:17 PM |
internal speed is high, external speed is low!! | esara | Homebuilt PC's | 14 | April 12th 04 11:28 PM |
FSB, bus speed and memory speed?? | esara | Homebuilt PC's | 1 | April 6th 04 06:29 PM |
Synchronize vs. non-synchronize FSB/Memory speed? | Ohaya | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | March 11th 04 08:11 AM |