Ram limitation in Win98 SE

[scott_eaton]

<I>If your WiN98SE system works above 512megs of ram; more power to you.</i><P>I believe that Win98 simply cannot page higher than 512, and requires the application to be aware of the higher memory to use it. I'm pretty sure Photoshop does this.<P><i>The key question is why do you want to use win98 on a regular basis in 2004?</i><P>Beats me as well. Old NT 3.51 is about 1000x superior to Win98 in terms of imaging and multitasking, and Win2K pro maybe a million times better. I've found DOS based imaging apps using the 32-bit memory extenders to be more stable than Win95/98.<P>The horror stories about system upgrades are also vastly exagerated, and any device that doesn't have drivers on the manufacturer's web-site ready and waiting to be installed on XP or Win2K needs to be replaced anyways. I'm sorry your Toys -R- Us winmodem, integrated Sis Video, and ISA based SMC 10meg Nic card doesn't get installed automatically with Win2K pro.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Scott; Thanks for adding some input. Here I happen to like both WIN98SE and Win2000. If possible; I upgrade to Win 2000. Some older boxes are dedicated to older scanners with no Win2000 drivers available; and stay at the Win98SE level. They work; and will stay with Win98SE until they die....All the many IBM video cards I have work with both win98se and win2000; some network cards I got with NT boxes only have NT based drivers; so win2000 works well.<BR><BR>Many of the boxes here read/write abit more snappier when NT based OS's are used; like the DMA is abit better.

[beauh44]

I couldn't find anything in Microsoft's Knowledge Base that says 98SE can't support >512Mb of RAM. I use 768Mb with no trouble on an old Dell box with 98SE. I did find this, though at: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q253912

 

SYMPTOMS

If a computer that is running any of the versions of Windows that are listed above (98 is one of them) contains more than 512 megabytes (for example, 768 megabytes) of physical memory (RAM), you may experience one or more of the following symptoms: You may be unable to open an MS-DOS session (or command prompt) while Windows is running. Attempts to do so may generate the following error message:

 

There is not enough memory available to run this program.

Quit one or more programs, and then try again.

The computer may stop responding (hang) while Windows is starting, or halt and display the following error message:

 

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.

CAUSE

The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.

 

On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine).

WORKAROUND

To work around this problem, use one of the following methods:

Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less. For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: (Etc., see above link for rest of workaround)

 

I would think that if Windows did not support >512Mb of RAM, Microsoft would have just said so and there would be no workaround. Still, fundamentally, Windows 98 still sits on top of good old 16-bit DOS and many of its quirks. It is not a true 32-bit OS, and "thunks" 32-bit code down to a more managable 16-bit size. I think adding more RAM will work fine for you though - assuming you implement the above. Best wishes . . .

[scott_eaton]

System.ini and other SYSEDIT hacks that are really nothing more than compatibility layers for Win 3.11 emulation.

 

Another reason to switch to Win2K or XP.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Actually there are a few guys who mess with special 32bit DOS extenders.

[oskar_ojala]

from a technical perspective there are some plainly weird comments here...

 

What I do think is that Scott is correct with the upgrade question. I checked drivers in the mid-90's when I got a NT box home, it worked well then and the driver issue has not gotten worse during these years.. If you still run some 4 Mbps ISA made in middle of nowhere Token Ring card, then spending $20 on a high quality 100 Mbps PCI ethernet card will not hurt you... ;-)

[scott_eaton]

Oscar,

 

<P>

 

The other day I was offered $200 to stop over to a dept manager's house and fix his ME box. Given the choice between a root canal with no anesthesia while also being forced to listen to 'The Best of Wham' through head phones vs getting $200 to fix Win98 SP3 (Windows ME), well, I'll take George Michael. I made it clear the only way I'd help with that box was if it involved the command 'FDISK' or a shrink wrapped Win2K. <P>Can't remember if somebody answered the question for Anirban, but RAM type such as DDR vs SDR has no bearing on the operating system. A computer that is running DDR though indicates to me it's fairly new, and likely a good candidate for Win2k.

[scott_eaton]

Kelly,

 

DOS extenders were actually quite popular for awhile because many applications that required both DOS and massive amounts of RAM weren't very happy stuck in a DOS shell on Win95. I know that the very popular Doom II ran in that environment along with many imaging programs like QFX that required more than 4meg of RAM. While I didn't mind all the legacy compatibility in Win95, all the 16-bit stuff should have been killed off with Win98. This would have resulted in a much better and more robust operating system that could have migrated to Win2k or XP much smoother.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Anirban; what applications are you running? Does you box connect to any old scanners? An upgrade to WIN2000 in many of my 18 boxes was painless. Several connect to 11x17 flatbeds; that have no win2000 driver support. "upgrading" to WIN2000 would involve scraping several decent scanners; worth alot of money to my business; costly to replace. Several of them work with NT 4.0; but I basically dont want to maintain yet another old OS; plus I dont want to explore trying to get USB to run with NT4.0<BR><BR>Here I basically have several other giant 36"wide scanners; that cost 54k new; and use DOS. I run parts of the DOS program under WIN98SE; and usablity with MY hardware above 512megs causes system lockups. Since nobody wants to chip in for new scanners; the older units are still used; until it makes money sense to replace them.<BR><BR>Here I have boxes with DOS; 3.11; NT3.51; Win2000; XP. Many of the technical articles maintained by Microsoft on usage/problems of using above 512megs of ram with win98se have been deleted from their sites. <BR><BR>I never have seen where they said that usage of above 512 megs was always possible..; or that it is always not possible.<BR><BR> Search the web for 512megs and windows 98 and you will find alot of tales of success; failures; and problems.<BR><BR>Here many of MY DOS programs wont work under WIN2000; and several 11x17 high end color scanners wont either. It is abit bizzare that somebody would want to scrap out thousands of dollars worth of hardware; just to upgrade to a new OS. Here a legal copy of WIN2000 costs 1/2 the price of the cheap starter computer; bundled with XP; at the office box stores.<BR><BR>Here I upgrade where it makes sense as a business ; from the money end; and the "futzing factor" end...................<BR><br>I have never fooled with Windows Me! Oh Happy Days!;

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I like Win2000 alot; and use it where ever possible. It is a decent program.

[anirban_sett]

I'm going to upgrade to win2K, just a matter of few months maybe. I've no doubt that Win2K is the right step !

I was just making sure when I buy a 512 MB stick , can I combine it with my existing 256 MB stick with existing Win98 OS.

 

My PC is fairly new, built couple of months ago with AMD XP2500+ Barton ,mobo supporting 2GB DDR400(limited to PC2700 by Processor) and inbuilt ethernet card.I connect a SCSI film scanner and USB print scanner, so as far as compatibility is concerned , I'm not too concerned about drivers etc. All my peripherals are pretty new.

 

I've got my questions answered :

1) Try with 768 MB ram 2)DDR or SDR does not affect Win98 ram limitation.

 

Thanks for all your responses, I learnt something.