BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 28d, 9h, 23m | CPU: 53% | MEM: 5562MB of 12227MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Windows 98 and 512 MB RAM        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:11 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am

Posts
748

Location
Guelph, ON, Canada
So I have been setting up my PC's with the 4 way KVM the 4th PC is the slowest, but also the most interesting, I have taken a look inside to see what type of RAM would be needed, to upgrade and in total surprise it needs RD-RAM

98 and 512 MB RAM; I do know there are problems with Windows 98 addressing RAM above 512, I wikied it and did see a 3rd party patch and whatnot but couldn't really find it, but what should I do go with 256 or 512? Find the patch or edit the 98 System.ini file?

Thanks.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:02 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm

Posts
1022

Location
The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"

Favourite OS
Rhapsody, BeOS
I happily used 636 Megabytes of ram...

My understanding is that it has something to do with the ram module and it not generally true. If you Google the problem you will see instructions and a replica of Microsofts help article on the issue...

I have ran 98SE with a P1 and 128 megs of ram without much of a problem, although it was only good of browsing the internet and reading e-mail. (in 2003)

_________________
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:36 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Go with 512 MB of RAM if you can, and add the following to system.ini to avoid problems:
Code:
[vcache]
MaxFileCache=102400

I've done this too and had no problems with 512, 768 or 832 MB on Windows 98 and 98 SE. I've not been able to boot it with 1024 MB though, crashed no matter what I set the cache to. Only solution was to artificially limit the OS to ~850 MB IIRC.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:52 am 
Reply with quote
I have a machine here running 98se, 1gig of ram no problems.
I had to install 98 using 512mb 1st up, then set the maxfilecache
as empireum did, and found it was fine.
Been running this rig now for 5 years without having to re install it.
Probably the longest running system under the roof here.

Image


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:33 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am

Posts
748

Location
Guelph, ON, Canada
ahh cool, I will check eBay, I did see some RDRam for pretty cheap but it was untested, though this system will be the gaming system for the older games and multiplayer games of doom on source ports and stuff, I still lack a virus checker and firewall for this system though.

One more question, is that different sites say I have to get memory compatible with the system , the PC is a Dell XPS 733R if I just get any will that do or is it system specific ?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:02 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm

Posts
571

Location
United Kingdom
I know next to Windows Vista, Windows ME was one of Microsoft's worse operating systems yet, but from what I have heard, Windows ME can by default without any tweaking, handle upto 1GB of RAM.
If you don't want/like Vista, why not get XP? Despite the fact it is around 7 years old, it will be supported by Microsoft for a little while to come yet, and you can add as much RAM to your system as you want/need and won't have to worry about Windows getting unstable due to too much RAM.

By the way, how much RAM does Windows 2000 support max? I heard because it obviously has an NT-based kernel, a lot, lot different to the 9x kernel, it supports more RAM although I am not sure wether or not it supports upto 3.25 GB like the 32-bit Windows XP/Vista/current build of Windows 7 do.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:09 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am

Posts
748

Location
Guelph, ON, Canada
Depends on your version Pro I believe either supports 2 or 4 GB.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:32 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
@squidward_
All versions of Windows 9x including Me, being 32-bit OSes, are supposed to be able to handle up to 4 GB of RAM. The actual limit is much lower, I've heard of some computers running fine with 1.5GB and one of these OSes, my experience has been that 98(SE) crashed on my system if I gave it access to more than about 850 MB whereas ME was, IIRC, able to work fine with 1 GB if the MaxFileCache entry was added. In other words, ME required tweaking as well, MS even have a knowledge base article on it.
The topic starter probably knows NT supports more RAM et al, but the question was if 98 could handle as much so please stay on topic.

Windows 2000 Professional and Server support up to 4 GB of RAM, so do Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and Server. Advanced Server supports up to 8 GB and Datacenter Server addresses up to 32 GB.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:53 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am

Posts
748

Location
Guelph, ON, Canada
anyways I believe I found some 256 but 512 RDRam is quite expensive, I may just go with 256 RDRam its way cheaper

Even though the system supports 512.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:56 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm

Posts
5271

Location
The Collection Book

Favourite OS
Windows & Phone
empireum wrote:
@squidward_
All versions of Windows 9x including Me, being 32-bit OSes, are supposed to be able to handle up to 4 GB of RAM. The actual limit is much lower, I've heard of some computers running fine with 1.5GB and one of these OSes, my experience has been that 98(SE) crashed on my system if I gave it access to more than about 850 MB whereas ME was, IIRC, able to work fine with 1 GB if the MaxFileCache entry was added. In other words, ME required tweaking as well, MS even have a knowledge base article on it.
The topic starter probably knows NT supports more RAM et al, but the question was if 98 could handle as much so please stay on topic.

Windows 2000 Professional and Server support up to 4 GB of RAM, so do Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and Server. Advanced Server supports up to 8 GB and Datacenter Server addresses up to 32 GB.


A bit wrong about the 9x versions.
They're 16-bit/32-bit Hybrids.

And @squidward_:
Windows Vista has never showed me an BSOD.
Also ME never did.
I got more BSOD's on 98/2000/XP, but that was because some drivers were faulty.

_________________
Image
http://www.thecollectionbook.info
Subscribe to our Image for updates and like us on Image.

Reading Mode only, PM's possible.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:56 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:57 am

Posts
400
Well, my system used to run Windows 98SE for the longest time with only 64MB. Then, I installed some new RAM, bumping it up to 256MB. However, my computer is getting "old" in which sometimes, it will read only 254MB when starting up. I think it has something to do with the Hard Drive connections for some weird reason because it depends on how my hard drive will start up, in which if the orange "busy" light remains on for too long, then it will read only 254, but sometimes, I will get 256MB. This gets tedious when installing programs that require exactly 256MB, as it will warn me about it [like Xubuntu].

I'd say 256MB is more than enough for a full installation of Windows 98 with the Second Edition updates. My manual states that only 16MB is needed, in which you'll get 16x the power with 256MB, and 64x the amount of RAM required with 1GB. So you're machine should be screaming if you get it running on that.

_________________
Since January 2005, I've been in the Operating Systems Prototype Community. I've enjoyed learning more these past four years about the development of the Windows and Macintosh operating systems, as well as learning of new user-based projects that optimize system performance.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:28 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:26 pm

Posts
930
You can add all of the ram you want to a 9x machine. It will even be detected... but it will never be used. It is a little hard to prove, because memory usage stats in things like task manager are misleading, and a lot of numbers double count memory in physical ram that has also been flushed to swap (like read ahead cache). But trust me, anything more than 512mbis pointless.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:35 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
DjRob, sorry I got that wrong. :oops: Thanks for pointing this out.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:57 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm

Posts
5271

Location
The Collection Book

Favourite OS
Windows & Phone
empireum wrote:
DjRob, sorry I got that wrong. :oops: Thanks for pointing this out.


Everybody can forget something sometimes :wink:

But on topic, just install with 512MB, then edit the file noted and then powerdown, put the other 512MB in and then boot again.

_________________
Image
http://www.thecollectionbook.info
Subscribe to our Image for updates and like us on Image.

Reading Mode only, PM's possible.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:30 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am

Posts
748

Location
Guelph, ON, Canada
512 D RAM is expensive I just stuck with 256 didn't pay too bad a price for it under $13 Canadian Dollars.

Will be helpful modernizing The 'Dell'

So far I got Firefox 2.0.11 on there doesn't take that many resources, and some of the drivers, now I just need the firewall and AVG and the old games I played when I was a kid, shame 98 can't read NTFS as I would hook up the external to the KVM switch.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:13 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm

Posts
571

Location
United Kingdom
I intially didn't think Windows 95/98/ME would become unstable if you added ''too much'' RAM. I just thought that it would run as normal, but not see all the RAM your system has. Howcome 32-bit Windows XP/Vista don't get unstable if you were to try and use over 4 GB of RAM and not use a 64-bit OS?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:43 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am

Posts
748

Location
Guelph, ON, Canada
Yea I tried it on a gig and lets say 98 crashed and burned a lot, but none the less with myself getting a nice pentium 3, with expensive RAM

I may check if there is a way to modernize to OS a bit more without upgrading the ram or any other part, what I gather this Dell was a server,

Firefox 2.0 is a good start

Source ports for the old games are also good but is good to see I have more than enough space to put my collection of old games on it hehe.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:47 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:21 pm

Posts
595
@RentedMule: I seen many people which had slowdowns on >512MB with 98.

On VMware, I couldn't use 128 MB with 95 (nearly the same kernel), it just started to pop up messages with title "MS-DOS Prompt" saying "Out of memory". Funny.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:52 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm

Posts
571

Location
United Kingdom
It is strange how badly Windows 95, 98 & ME were built I think. Howcome an NT-based version of Windows wouln't get too unstable if you added more RAM than it can support? Thats something I am wondering.

And Bill Gates is saying in the 80's ''640k of RAM ought to be enough for anyone''. I bet in the Win9x era he said something like ''128MB of RAM ought to be enough for anyone''

Finally, I have used Windows 98 first edition on 512MB of RAM and also Windows ME, and it ran perfectly.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:51 pm 
Reply with quote
You might also try finding if you can update the BIOS on the MB. Newer BIOS patches may help address memory issues. 512mb should be plenty for Win98.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:00 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am

Posts
748

Location
Guelph, ON, Canada
yea true, but this ram is the RDRam by RamBus and its expensive, I was lucky to get a 256 stick.


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS