max SDRAM w/ WIN 98

[skimzzz]

with SDRAM having been so cheap lately, I picked up more than I would usually buy. I can put up to 756 MB on my AMD system. I read somewhere that WIN 98 is not designed to take advantage of large amounts of RAM. At which point does the diminishing returns hit for WIN 98 and SDRAM?

 

[Arrow]

With a Windows 9x system, you shouldn't go above 512MB of ram. It may start having problems above that.

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>

 

[camieabz]

512MB max without registry tweaks. I'll ask an expert to post the link for tweaking.

<b><font color=blue>~scribble~</font color=blue></b> <A HREF="http://www.ud.com/" target="_new">Help cure cancer.</A>

 

[AMD_Man]

No need for registry tweaking. Just add this at the end of your system.ini file before upgrading

[vcache]
MinFileCache=2048
MaxFileCache=262144

This limits Windows Cache size to 256MB, which is more than enough for any Windows 9x user.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

 

[olrac]

I recently build a system with a Athlon XP 1600+ running windows 98SE. Before I only had 256MB of DDR ram. I would get lock ups, blue screens, you name it. As soon as I installed an additional 256 MB, I've been running this machine NON STOP with Windows 98SE and have NOT had not even one blue screen or registry errors(Believe it or not!). I would strongly suggest to have 512 MB of ram on any computer running Win98. Thats all you need, and you would be surprised how stable Win98 can be with this amount of memory installed. I'd say GO FOR IT!

 

[Toejam31]

ATTN: skimzzz

I agree with AMD Man and Arrow.

In any case, it's a good idea to keep the cache setting no larger than the installed physical memory. The VCache can go as high as 800MB, which often interferes with memory addresses for the AGP port.

In Win95, that could cause this error message:

<font color=red>32-bit file access was unable to run. Your hard disk(s) may not be compatible with 32-bit file access.</font color=red>

In Win98, it could cause these error messages:

<font color=red>There is not enough memory available to run this program. Quit one or more programs, and then try again.</font color=red>

<font color=red>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.</font color=red>


It's generally accepted that the cache setting(s) should be around 25% of your RAM, but the RAM used by VCache cannot be used by applications, so that's something to keep in mind.

Some people also think it is best for both the Minimum and Maximum cache to be approximately the same size, in order to avoid resizing, but I think the better choice would be a minimum cache size of 4096, as to avoid tying up memory addresses with a static, large cache.

So... my suggestion for the settings would be, for 512MB of RAM:

MinFileCache=4096
MaxFileCache=131072

The MaxFileCache could go as high as 524288, but that would be the absolutely limit. AMD Man's suggestion of 262144 is a good one, because it is not too low, nor too high. My recommended settings are for the "norm" for performance.

******************************************

I also suggest that another setting be changed to allow for 512MB of RAM or more.

1.) In your system.ini file, in the [386enh] section, add the following line:

ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1

There is a good deal of information on the subject on this page: <A HREF="http://www.aumha.org/a/memmgmt.htm" target="_new">http://www.aumha.org/a/memmgmt.htm</A> It's definitely worth a look-see, <i>especially</i> if you are considering adding even more than 512MB of RAM to the system.

Toejam31

<font color=red>My Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>
____________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."</font color=purple>

 

[btvillarin]

Here's a great program that fixes the compatibility problem for Win9x systems with memory > 512MB or RAM:
<A HREF="http://www.outertech.com" target="_new">Cacheman 5</A>

I've been recommending it around here, and practically everyone that tries it gets their problem fixed.

Problem solved. Please check out <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/btvillarin/" target="_new">My Website</A>.

 

[Guest]

after i installed my CDRW, i would be having blue screen every once my computer is switched on. i have 128 mb sdram and i bought a stick of 256 and it's running fine so far without any blue screen!!!

 

[svol]

My system with 512 MB DDR RAM with Windows 98 is also running pretty stable. I also use Cacheman and I have a max of 256 MB virtual memory.

Do not make illegal copies of this post

 

[camieabz]

So my windows managed swapfile has nothing to do with my vcache settings?

I set my swapfile to 1024MB on its own partition.

I can mess with the vcache without fvcking with this?

<b><font color=blue>~scribble~</font color=blue></b> <A HREF="http://www.ud.com/" target="_new">Help cure cancer.</A>

 

[AMD_Man]

yes

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

 

[Toejam31]

Nothing whatsoever. The VCache is a small portion of physical RAM allocated for the memory addresses used by the Windows disk-caching virtual device driver, but it is not part of the virtual memory.

That's a pretty good sized swap file you've got there. My minimum, with 512MB of RAM is 768MB, and it is rarely ever accessed, unless I run something like Photoshop. Normal functions like browsing, email ... the paging file doesn't get touched at all. In fact, I have never even seen it increase in size, even if I run dozens of filters back-to-back in Photoshop.

Toejam31

<font color=red>My Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>
____________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."</font color=purple>

 

[Toejam31]

Um, that's <i>384MB</i>. The problems start when more than 512MB is installed.

Toejam31

<font color=red>My Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>
____________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."</font color=purple>

 

[Toejam31]

<font color=green>"At which point does the diminishing returns hit for WIN 98 and SDRAM?</font color=green>

It has been shown that the biggest jump in performance for Win9x is from 32MB to 64MB of RAM. After that, <b>any</b> additional memory offers steadily diminishing returns in increased system performance.

Because of this, and because of the poor memory management in Win9x, adding memory beyond 256MB is just plain overkill. The performance increase beyond that point with additional memory has historically just not been cost-effective. Only third-party programs can really take sufficient advantage of the additional memory, and as mentioned, beyond 512MB, you have to make manual adjustments to the system to avoid errors. (Or use bt's favorite new toy.) <GRIN>

If you truly want to take advantage of large amounts of memory, you'll need to upgrade the operating system. It's as simple as that. I'd say that the "sweet spot" for home desktop systems running Win2K or WinXP would be 512MB ... but of course, you can easily add up to 4GB with either of these two OS's, if your mainboard supports that much memory.

Toejam31

P.S. Someone please remind me to bookmark this thread so I never have to type this down again! This makes the 50th time, give or take a few dozen threads. LOL!

I think we have the subject matter pretty much covered this time around. But if something was missed ... please get your bad self in here and write it down!

;-)

<font color=red>My Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>
____________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."</font color=purple>

 

[camieabz]

I don't personally like messing with the swapfile. I like to let windows do its stuff. With an entire partition, it doesn't mess with the fragmentation of everything else.

Granted, it may slow things down slightly if it resises itself, but with 512MB of mem, I feel it'll rarely happen.

I bought the game "Shogun" and it recommends having 500MB free for swapfile. I figure "give it twice this and forget about it".

I found that windows wouldn't recognise a 1000MB or less windows managed swapfile, but 1024MB is. Must be the true gigabyte. With less, it registers it as 0MB. WTF!

BTW I have 78GB to draw on, so I feel its worth it.

<b><font color=blue>~scribble~</font color=blue></b> <A HREF="http://www.ud.com/home.htm" target="_new">Help cure cancer.</A>

 

[Toejam31]

"I found that windows wouldn't recognise a 1000MB or less windows managed swapfile, but 1024MB is. Must be the true gigabyte. With less, it registers it as 0MB. WTF!"

I agree with the ... WTF? That's the first time I've ever heard of that particular problem.

You have computer gremlins, camie. Don't let that machine get out of the house; your neighbors might get infected!

Toejam31

<font color=red>My Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>
____________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."</font color=purple>

 

[camieabz]

Thats right, blame my system. LoL

Remember thats on the Windows managed swapfile on a 1024 partition. Not an allocated "user managed" swapfile. Try it.

<b><font color=blue>~scribble~</font color=blue></b> <A HREF="http://www.ud.com/home.htm" target="_new">Help cure cancer.</A>