Windows 98 and 512 MB RAM

Discuss Windows 95, 98 and ME.
Post Reply
hypr
Donator
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada

Windows 98 and 512 MB RAM

Post by hypr »

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.

Frozenport
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm
Location: The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"
Contact:

Post by Frozenport »

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

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

Go with 512 MB of RAM if you can, and add the following to system.ini to avoid problems:

Code: Select all

[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.

Dion

Post by Dion »

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

hypr
Donator
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada

Post by hypr »

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 ?

squidward_
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by squidward_ »

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

hypr
Donator
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada

Post by hypr »

Depends on your version Pro I believe either supports 2 or 4 GB.

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

@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.

hypr
Donator
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada

Post by hypr »

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.

Rob Jansen
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 5271
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: The Collection Book
Contact:

Post by Rob Jansen »

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.

ddrmaxromance
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:57 am

Post by ddrmaxromance »

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.

RentedMule
Donator
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by RentedMule »

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.

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

DjRob, sorry I got that wrong. Thanks for pointing this out.

Rob Jansen
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 5271
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: The Collection Book
Contact:

Post by Rob Jansen »

empireum wrote:DjRob, sorry I got that wrong. Thanks for pointing this out.
Everybody can forget something sometimes

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

hypr
Donator
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada

Post by hypr »

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.

squidward_
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by squidward_ »

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

hypr
Donator
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada

Post by hypr »

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.

RichardG867
FTP Access
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:21 pm

Post by RichardG867 »

@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.

squidward_
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by squidward_ »

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

m0ab

Post by m0ab »

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.

hypr
Donator
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada

Post by hypr »

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

Post Reply