Ram: more vs. speed?

David Maynard wrote:
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.

So what is wrong with the word "workaround"?

Google shows 647,000 English messages for "workaround" including your usage a few posts
ago.

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.

You are claiming that because one of the problems is solved (in your opinion), Windows 98 works with more than 512MB of RAM. I disagree.

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.

If it were a working solution to the one problem you think is all there is to making Windows 98 work with 512MB of RAM, then why are the other solutions listed? You admit that removing the extra memory is the most difficult solution, so what's the purpose of listing that solution?

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,

In your opinion, that solves one of the problems with making Windows 98 work with more than 512MB of RAM. If it were a worthwhile solution to one of the problems, someone would figure out exactly what that value should be.

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.

That's nice, but taking the checkbox to limit usable memory is a whole lot easier than removing the 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.


I'm glad you provided the references.

You are, no doubt, thanking me for the second link

No, I was thanking you for providing 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.

Hardly.

It is a big fat mass.

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.

I also know that 1GB is more than 512MB, that the original poster is using Windows XP, and that the original poster can install and remove RAM.

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.

It's an entire paragraph, it's an entire section, it is the whole section under the bold print uppercase word "CAUSE".

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.

... there is a workaround for using [more than 512MB of RAM].

There are at least two workarounds for allowing the extra memory to remain in the system. One of them is an obscure suggestion to limit vCatch memory. The other is to easily disable the extra memory.

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."

Less pain for Microsoft's customers to know that Windows 98 and Millennium can use only 512MB of RAM? I agree, that's one reason the rest of us are here.

In my opinion, it wouldn't be easier.

In my opinion that's an opinion derived simply for the sake of arguing.

Isn't that what you're doing? My reply was apt, directed towards the original poster, yours was supporting a troll.

You think using Windows 98 with more than 512MB of RAM is a good idea. I don't. Your conclusion is based on what you believe is a solution to one part of the problem. In my experience, that solution is fishy.

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.

No, "shared video memory" is a specific term and does not 'include' AGP.

From the article:
"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."

That supports my point that it is a widespread problem, especially nowadays.

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.

It is in the context of my post to which you took offense.

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 guess that is semantics on the word "work".

I certainly agree that Windows 98 and Millennium can cope with more than 512MB of RAM installed on the mainboard. But since the original poster (again assuming that he were using Windows 98) can install and remove RAM, there is little or no reason for him to leave the extra memory.

Have a great day (or night) anyway.

You too.

Conor wrote:
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.

Being very technically inclined, I find that difficult to accept. Can you be more specific?

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.

Which is after Windows 98 was written.





--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy. com!prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodig y.com!prodigy.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!border1.nntp.d ca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca. giganews.com!nntp.karoo.co.uk!news.karoo.co.uk.POS TED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:54:05 -0600
From: Conor
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Ram: more vs. speed?
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 22:53:57 -0000
Message-ID:
References:
Organization: Home
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.70.2067
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.249.185.110
X-Trace: sv3-TPN3LZQdX3DEIMC444Onlm5jhInPX9zcLvwsUmJBgf1Z4RBwbM cyU7G74YCUPB/Ly9bIJMbYHMDu+9q!4xgDIYmDGJ88Ndjq8O39pwOi1DJeRv/ZAj0pbG8Hw3GwrZqpKwvzyWn+ahD8HHgsRPQX60exqW1f!27sK S3t4Qvbta30=
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.20
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:420941

David Maynard wrote:

... Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does need to
be setup properly.

Yes.

Says who?

That is what I've been telling John Doe

What you have been telling me is that what you believe is a solution to
one problem is the solution to the whole problem with making Windows 98
work with more than 512MB of RAM, while you completely ignore other
problems like the fixed resource memory size.

but he keeps insisting on claiming it won't work

I never claimed it wouldn't work, or cope, using your definition. In
fact I stated that in my opinion there might be exceptions.

with selective culling and misreading of the knowledge base articles.

Posting out of context here is an easy way for you to avoid facing the
reality of the knowledge base articles.

My reply was well-suited to the original poster (who as we now know does
not even use Windows 98). Just like the troll you chose to concur with,
you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.










Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!prodigy.net !newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!nntp.flas h.net!newspeer1.stngva01.us.to.verio.net!verio!new s.glorb.com!cyclone.bc.net!sjc1.usenetserver.com!n ews.usenetserver.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Ram: more vs. speed?
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 21:28:16 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To:
Lines: 69
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:420959

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.

And some people will argue forever that Windows 98 is more stable than
Windows XP. Everybody has an opinion.

... And yes, win98 will use all of this ram. I have verified this with
SysMon many times.

I have used monitoring tools in Windows at all times since Windows 3.1,
beginning over 10 years ago with what I recall as "cache mon" or
something like that. System Monitor came along with Windows 95. The
problem with using Windows 98 and Windows Millennium with more than
512MB of RAM isn't just RAM, it's also limited resource memory for which
there is no workaround. The problem is that the more programs you have
open, the more resource memory they use (some programs use more than
others), and the sooner a user of Windows 98 runs out of resource
memory. There are likely exceptions I guess like when a user has few
programs running at the same time and one of them uses a whole bunch of
RAM.

Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum

Windows NT and Windows 2000 were not designed for 512MB maximum.

If that were true about Windows 9x, then most users would not run out of
resource memory long before they use 512MB of RAM.

snipped rest of the beating of a dead horse straw man argument

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

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.


So what is wrong with the word "workaround"?

Should have asked that the first time instead of trying to be 'cute'.

I explained it below in the last message.


Google shows 647,000 English messages for "workaround" including your usage a few posts
ago.


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.


You are claiming that because one of the problems is solved (in your opinion),

Not my 'opinion'. It's Microsoft who says it solves the 512 Meg boundary
problem.

Windows 98 works with more than 512MB of RAM. I disagree.

It's not a matter of 'opinion'. The knowledge base article says it fixes
the 512 meg problem.


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.


If it were a working solution to the one problem you think is all there is to making Windows 98 work with 512MB of RAM, then why are the other solutions listed? You admit that removing the extra memory is the most difficult solution, so what's the purpose of listing that solution?

I've already explained that.


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,


In your opinion, that solves one of the problems

It is not my 'opinion'. The knowledge base article flat out gives it as a
solution to THE problem with 512 Meg RAM.


with making Windows 98 work with more than 512MB of RAM. If it were a worthwhile solution to one of the problems, someone would figure out exactly what that value should be.

The rest of that sentence is just absurd illogic.


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.


That's nice, but taking the checkbox to limit usable memory is a whole lot easier than removing the RAM.

Which is why it's number 2.


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


No, I was thanking you for providing the references.

Whatever.


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.


It is a big fat mass.

ONly to those who can't read.

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.


I also know that 1GB is more than 512MB, that the original poster is using Windows XP, and that the original poster can install and remove RAM.

Good. So you know the second link has nothing to do with the amount of RAM
under discussion.

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.


It's an entire paragraph, it's an entire section, it is the whole section under the bold print uppercase word "CAUSE".

Which is not the whole thing.

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.


... there is a workaround for using [more than 512MB of RAM].


There are at least two workarounds for allowing the extra memory to remain in the system.

The objective is not to simply 'leave RAM in the system'.

One of them is an obscure suggestion to limit vCatch memory.

If you don't understand it just say so but it isn't 'obscure' to the rest
of us.

The other is to easily disable the extra memory.

Which is a rather stupid thing to do: install RAM and then disable it. But
if that's your ''pick' then so be 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."


Less pain for Microsoft's customers to know that Windows 98 and Millennium can use only 512MB of RAM?

Yes, it would be, if it were true. The fact that there's a solution
provided is proof that it isn't.

I agree, that's one reason the rest of us are here.

What? To pass out faulty information, like you did, that Windows98 can't
work with more than 512 MEg of RAM?



In my opinion, it wouldn't be easier.

In my opinion that's an opinion derived simply for the sake of arguing.


Isn't that what you're doing? My reply was apt, directed towards the original poster, yours was supporting a troll.

I posted the fact that Windows98 can work with more than 512 Meg of RAM,
how it can be done, and the link to prove it. And you've been
misrepresenting the facts ever since.


You think using Windows 98 with more than 512MB of RAM is a good idea. I don't.

I didn't say a thing about whether it was a 'good idea' or not. I simply
pointed out you are wrong when you say Windows98 can't work with more than
512 Meg of RAM.

Your conclusion is based on what you believe is a solution to one part of the problem.

Being able to read plain English when MS publishes a solution is not a
'belief' on my part.

In my experience, that solution is fishy.

But you haven't provided ONE thing to suggest that comment.


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.

No, "shared video memory" is a specific term and does not 'include' AGP.


From the article:
"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."

That is NOT from the "1 gigabyte (GB) or more of random access memory (RAM)
with shared video memory" article.


That supports my point that it is a widespread problem, especially nowadays.

All it 'supports' is that you can't tell one article from another and can't
tell the difference between 512 Meg, 1 Gig, and 1.5 Gig of RAM.


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.


It is in the context of my post to which you took offense.

I didn't 'take offense' at your initial post. I corrected the incorrect
information in it.


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 guess that is semantics on the word "work".

Only on your end.


I certainly agree that Windows 98 and Millennium can cope with more than 512MB of RAM installed on the mainboard.

'Cope'... semantics.

It works.

But since the original poster (again assuming that he were using Windows 98) can install and remove RAM, there is little or no reason for him to leave the extra memory.

Unless he wants to use it. And the 512 Meg article shows one how.



Have a great day (or night) anyway.

You too.

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


... Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does need to
be setup properly.

Yes.


Says who?

Says the person I was replying to who has an actual system with 768 Meg
working, and being used, and explained it in the portion you snipped out
simply for the sake of asking that stupid question.


That is what I've been telling John Doe


What you have been telling me is that what you believe is a solution to
one problem is the solution to the whole problem with making Windows 98
work with more than 512MB of RAM,

The 'one problem' is the 'problem' that was under discussion.

while you completely ignore other
problems like the fixed resource memory size.

I didn't ignore it and, in fact, gave you one example of what could use it.
Which, of course, you snipped out just as you snipped out the other posters
explanation that he not only used 768 Meg but had confirmed it and told HOW
he had confirmed it.


but he keeps insisting on claiming it won't work


I never claimed it wouldn't work, or cope, using your definition. In
fact I stated that in my opinion there might be exceptions.

Your original statement was an unqualified claim that the original poster
would NOT be able to use more than 512 Meg of RAM in Windows98 anyway.

That is not true and you've been making an illogical stink about it ever since.

with selective culling and misreading of the knowledge base articles.


Posting out of context here is an easy way for you to avoid facing the
reality of the knowledge base articles.

That's knee slapping hilarious coming from you after YOUR snip jobs and
selective quoting.

My reply was well-suited to the original poster (who as we now know does
not even use Windows 98). Just like the troll you chose to concur with,
you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

Your reply to the original poster was simply incorrect, no matter how you
try to spin it now.

David Maynard wrote:
John Doe wrote:
David Maynard wrote:
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.


So what is wrong with the word "workaround"?

Should have asked that the first time instead of trying to be 'cute'.

I was trying to translate your usage of "sic".

Google shows 647,000 English messages for "workaround" including
your usage a few posts ago.


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.


You are claiming that because one of the problems is solved (in your
opinion),

Not my 'opinion'. It's Microsoft who says it solves the 512 Meg
boundary problem.

Microsoft says it is a workaround.

Windows 98 works with more than 512MB of RAM. I disagree.

It's not a matter of 'opinion'. The knowledge base article says it
fixes the 512 meg problem.

The knowledge base article shows how to cope with more than 512MB of RAM
and Windows 98.

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.


If it were a working solution to the one problem you think is all
there is to making Windows 98 work with 512MB of RAM, then why are
the other solutions listed? You admit that removing the extra memory
is the most difficult solution, so what's the purpose of listing that
solution?

I've already explained that.


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,


In your opinion, that solves one of the problems

It is not my 'opinion'. The knowledge base article flat out gives it as
a solution to THE problem with 512 Meg RAM.

It is a workaround for one problem.

with making Windows 98 work with more than 512MB of RAM. If it were a
worthwhile solution to one of the problems, someone would figure out
exactly what that value should be.

The rest of that sentence is just absurd illogic.

Troll.

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.


That's nice, but taking the checkbox to limit usable memory is a
whole lot easier than removing the RAM.

Which is why it's number 2.

Leaving RAM sitting in the system is a good thing, in your opinion?

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


No, I was thanking you for providing the references.

Whatever.


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.


It is a big fat mass.

ONly to those who can't read.

Troll.

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.


I also know that 1GB is more than 512MB, that the original poster is
using Windows XP, and that the original poster can install and remove
RAM.

Good. So you know the second link has nothing to do with the amount of
RAM under discussion.

None of your argument has to do with the operating system under
discussion.

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.


It's an entire paragraph, it's an entire section, it is the whole
section under the bold print uppercase word "CAUSE".

Which is not the whole thing.

And?

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.


... there is a workaround for using [more than 512MB of RAM].


There are at least two workarounds for allowing the extra memory to
remain in the system.

The objective is not to simply 'leave RAM in the system'.

Two out of three workarounds disagree.

One of them is an obscure suggestion to limit vCatch memory.

If you don't understand it just say so but it isn't 'obscure' to the
rest of us.

I understand it just fine.

The other is to easily disable the extra memory.

Which is a rather stupid thing to do: install RAM and then disable it.
But if that's your ''pick' then so be it.

It's not my idea.

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."


Less pain for Microsoft's customers to know that Windows 98 and
Millennium can use only 512MB of RAM?

Yes, it would be, if it were true. The fact that there's a solution
provided is proof that it isn't.

A workaround for one of the problems.

I agree, that's one reason the rest of us are here.

What? To pass out faulty information, like you did, that Windows98
can't work with more than 512 MEg of RAM?

That is your straw man.

In my opinion, it wouldn't be easier.

In my opinion that's an opinion derived simply for the sake of
arguing.


Isn't that what you're doing? My reply was apt, directed towards the
original poster, yours was supporting a troll.

I posted the fact that Windows98 can work with more than 512 Meg of
RAM, how it can be done, and the link to prove it.

You posted a workaround for one problem, the only problem you recognize.

And you've been misrepresenting the facts ever since.

Which facts have I misrepresented in your opinion? You have ample
opportunity to dispute the facts.

You think using Windows 98 with more than 512MB of RAM is a good
idea. I don't.

I didn't say a thing about whether it was a 'good idea' or not.

So you agree that it's a bad idea for most users?

I simply pointed out you are wrong when you say Windows98 can't work
with more than 512 Meg of RAM.

That is your straw man.

Your conclusion is based on what you believe is a solution to one
part of the problem.

Being able to read plain English when MS publishes a solution is not a
'belief' on my part.

Ignoring the rest of the story is one of your solutions.

In my experience, that solution is fishy.

But you haven't provided ONE thing to suggest that comment.

Anyone who is very technically inclined should know that.

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.

No, "shared video memory" is a specific term and does not 'include'
AGP.


From the article:
"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."

That is NOT from the "1 gigabyte (GB) or more of random access memory
(RAM) with shared video memory" article.

It doesn't have to be.

That supports my point that it is a widespread problem, especially
nowadays.

All it 'supports' is that you can't tell one article from another and
can't tell the difference between 512 Meg, 1 Gig, and 1.5 Gig of RAM.

Troll.

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.


It is in the context of my post to which you took offense.

I didn't 'take offense' at your initial post. I corrected the incorrect
information in it.

That is your straw man. Even after I immediately provided you with an
explanation, you persist to pretend I was talking about only one
problem, apparently the only problem you're familiar with.

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 guess that is semantics on the word "work".

Only on your end.

Apparently you think that your first interpretation of what someone says
is the final word.

I certainly agree that Windows 98 and Millennium can cope with more
than 512MB of RAM installed on the mainboard.

'Cope'... semantics.

How so?

It works.

In your opinion.

But since the original poster (again assuming that he were using
Windows 98) can install and remove RAM, there is little or no reason
for him to leave the extra memory.

Unless he wants to use it. And the 512 Meg article shows one how.

It provides a workaround for one problem. It also says that one should
either disable it or uninstall it. That's not very supportive for the
idea that it is useful.







Path: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!news.glorb.com!postnews1.goog le.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Ram: more vs. speed?
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 04:56:09 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To:
Lines: 341
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:420966

David Maynard wrote:
John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


... Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does need to
be setup properly.

Yes.


Says who?

What you have been telling me is that what you believe is a solution
to one problem is the solution to the whole problem with making
Windows 98 work with more than 512MB of RAM,

The 'one problem' is the 'problem' that was under discussion.

Have you ever heard of the fixed resource problem? I've mentioned it
several times in this thread with you. You seem to ignore it and pretend
that the solution to the problem you are familiar with is the solution
to the whole problem.

while you completely ignore other problems like the fixed resource
memory size.

I didn't ignore it and, in fact, gave you one example of what could use
it.

Of what could use it?

Resource memory in Windows 9x is fixed. In order to use a lot of RAM,
like 512MB, one usually runs a lot of programs. But if you run a lot of
programs, you eat up resource memory. For the vast majority of users,
resource memory will be gone long before they use 512MB of RAM. There
might be exceptions, for example, a Photoshop user might be willing to
run a few additional programs because he or she seriously needs to use
Photoshop and Windows 9x. In my last years with Windows 9x, I was
often running up against the fixed resource memory problem.

http://tinyurl.com/598b9
http://tinyurl.com/4kc6x

Those two links might help explain what I'm talking about.

Which, of course, you snipped out just as you snipped out the other
posters explanation that he not only used 768 Meg but had confirmed it
and told HOW he had confirmed it.

I plainly stated that there might be exceptions. On Usenet, if there is
an exception, it will find you.

but he keeps insisting on claiming it won't work


I never claimed it wouldn't work, or cope, using your definition. In
fact I stated that in my opinion there might be exceptions.

Your original statement was an unqualified claim that the original
poster would NOT be able to use more than 512 Meg of RAM in Windows98
anyway.

That is not true and you've been making an illogical stink about it
ever since.

You simply refuse to listen to what I'm saying.

You wrote:
The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'

I immediately explained that there is more to it, but you cling to your
original interpretation and completely ignore my argument.

with selective culling and misreading of the knowledge base articles.


Posting out of context here is an easy way for you to avoid facing
the reality of the knowledge base articles.

That's knee slapping hilarious coming from you after YOUR snip jobs and
selective quoting.

I just try to snip the useless stuff.

My reply was well-suited to the original poster (who as we now know
does not even use Windows 98). Just like the troll you chose to
concur with, you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

Your reply to the original poster was simply incorrect, no matter how
you try to spin it now.

I have been trying to explain ever since you asked.









Path: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy. com!prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodig y.com!prodigy.com!news.glorb.com!logbridge.uoregon .edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Ram: more vs. speed?
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 05:06:36 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To:
Lines: 63
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:420967

John Doe wrote:

snip of asinine gibberish

Summary: You were wrong to say "If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium,
then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."

Windows98 or Millennium can use more than 512MB with the vcache registry
change.

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:


David Maynard wrote:



... Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does need to
be setup properly.

Yes.


Says who?

What you have been telling me is that what you believe is a solution
to one problem is the solution to the whole problem with making
Windows 98 work with more than 512MB of RAM,

The 'one problem' is the 'problem' that was under discussion.


Have you ever heard of the fixed resource problem? I've mentioned it
several times in this thread with you. You seem to ignore it and pretend
that the solution to the problem you are familiar with is the solution
to the whole problem.

I am well aware of the "fixed resource" problem but it has nothing to do
with 512 Meg of RAM. It can occur with less RAM and it might not occur with
more RAM; it depends on the applications, their memory usage and the
resources they consume.


while you completely ignore other problems like the fixed resource
memory size.

I didn't ignore it and, in fact, gave you one example of what could use
it.


Of what could use it?

Yes.


Resource memory in Windows 9x is fixed. In order to use a lot of RAM,
like 512MB, one usually runs a lot of programs.

I want to see your poll numbers on what is 'usual' for using 512 Meg of RAM
in a Windows98 system.

Not that it matter because I already gave you one example.

But if you run a lot of
programs, you eat up resource memory. For the vast majority of users,
resource memory will be gone long before they use 512MB of RAM.

Which, even if true, is irrelevant to your 'absolute' statement. You didn't
say "if he's a typical user" or "it's unlikely" or any other 'vast
majority' qualifier. You simple said, nope, won't be able to use it.

There
might be exceptions, for example, a Photoshop user might be willing to
run a few additional programs because he or she seriously needs to use
Photoshop and Windows 9x.

Which proves that your original absolute statement "If he is using Windows
98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway" is
false because you have no idea what he might care to run on the machine.

In my last years with Windows 9x, I was
often running up against the fixed resource memory problem.

http://tinyurl.com/598b9
http://tinyurl.com/4kc6x

Those two links might help explain what I'm talking about.

I already know what you're talking about. What you can't seem to figure out
is simply because the apps YOU ran hit the limit doesn't mean that NO ONE
can use more than 512 Meg, which you fallaciously assume every time you
just wildly, with no explanation of what you mean by it or knowledge of
what someone else might intend to run, throw out the absolute declaration
that "If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use
more than 512MB anyway."


Which, of course, you snipped out just as you snipped out the other
posters explanation that he not only used 768 Meg but had confirmed it
and told HOW he had confirmed it.


I plainly stated that there might be exceptions. On Usenet, if there is
an exception, it will find you.

You did not make an 'exception' when you posted "If he is using Windows 98
or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."

I pointed out that it *was* possible to use more than 512 Meg of RAM.

You now acknowledge 'there are exceptions', meaning my statement is true,
so what the hell are you arguing about?


but he keeps insisting on claiming it won't work


I never claimed it wouldn't work, or cope, using your definition. In
fact I stated that in my opinion there might be exceptions.

Your original statement was an unqualified claim that the original
poster would NOT be able to use more than 512 Meg of RAM in Windows98
anyway.

That is not true and you've been making an illogical stink about it
ever since.


You simply refuse to listen to what I'm saying.

I've heard every illogical word of it.

You wrote:

The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'


I immediately explained that there is more to it,

No, you immediately tried to claim it wasn't so because there were '2 other
workarounds' that involved disabling or removing the extra RAM and then
went into a song and dance about Microsoft 'emphatically telling the whole
word to not use more than 512 Meg of RAM'. Neither of which make any sense.

but you cling to your
original interpretation and completely ignore my argument.

I answered that argument the first time you brought it up and every time
since.

with selective culling and misreading of the knowledge base articles.


Posting out of context here is an easy way for you to avoid facing
the reality of the knowledge base articles.

That's knee slapping hilarious coming from you after YOUR snip jobs and
selective quoting.


I just try to snip the useless stuff.

Hardy har har.


My reply was well-suited to the original poster (who as we now know
does not even use Windows 98). Just like the troll you chose to
concur with, you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

Your reply to the original poster was simply incorrect, no matter how
you try to spin it now.


I have been trying to explain ever since you asked.

I didn't 'ask' anything. Your original post was incorrect, period.