>>> Win98/SE/ME can run 1024mb of ram

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
Thugsrook, we are two of a kind, I agree with you 100%. I like Win2K also, I just don't see a benefit over Win98 in my personal computing.

same, i find a huge improvement when im running multiple instances of aprogram to use more than 512 megs, I just dont like xp. I think its lame to have to turn off 50 items to get a machine to run right. On the other hand, server2003 seesm to work very nicely as a workstation and I feel right at home in it.

/ducks head waiting to be struck by lightning or the "server os shouldnt be used as workstation" nut cases

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: SkaarjMaster
I've been reading the tweak guide link stuff above and the key to get DM-2019 running is where in RAM are the files for the game loaded (approx. 100MB) and where is the other 540MB used at in RAM?

VMM (executable area for programs to run and stored data)

OR

Virtual Memory (cache area where recently called hard disk items are stored as they are needed now or soon and can be retrieved quickly)???

im not really sure

i do know that the best setup for win98/1024mb ram ...is to use a 1024mb minimum swap file (dont adjust the max) and a 512mb vcache.

 

[SkaarjMaster]

If I have all that RAM, why does my swap file need to be so big? I had it at 800MB at one point, but I now have it at 512-536 MB (somewhere in there, min. and max.). I'll have to watch the HD light when I start up that map again I guess. I'll probably start all this sometime late tonight, finish over the weekend (hopefully, Friday night) and post the results at the usual forums.

 

[SkaarjMaster]

One other thing: if the RAM is split between Virtual Memory (vcache set to 512MB) and VMM (system memory set to 512MB), then where does the AGP aperature reserve what it needs?

 

[SkaarjMaster]

OK, here's what I did over the weekend. I reinstalled my extra 512MB of RAM to give me 1GB total with Win98SE and the computer recognized it, so I decided to try some suggestions given here and other forums, as well as ideas from that Tweak guide. For all these tests, my swap file was set to 524MB for min. and max., but this shouldn't matter too much because I was getting the same types of errors when it was set to 800MB in my earlier round of tests. Here's each group of tests I tried and their results:

#1. In System.ini file,
[vcache]
MaxFileCache= (tried 524288, 522240, 393216, 262144, 131072 and 65536)
[386Enh]
ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1

#1 RESULTS: 524288 exited Windows as soon as I started first map, then when I restarted I got the "Please enable Direct3D acceleration...." error. The other numbers gave me total lockup errors from just before starting the first match to 1 1/2 min. into the match with no clear trends.

#2. Tried disabling my DOS LEGACY drivers with the above MaxFileCache numbers.

#2 RESULTS: Each time I either got the game completely locking up, locking with the UT2003Build Critical Error, or the same above Direct3D error with no clear pattern.

#3. In System.ini file,
[vcache]
MinFileCache= and MaxFileCache= (tried same above values)
ChunkSize=2048
NameCache=4096
DirectoryCache=96
[386Enh]
DMABufferSize=64
PageBuffers=32
ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1

#3 RESULTS: Locking up from either starting match to as long as 2 minutes and 20 seconds into the match with either total lockup, UT2003 Build errors, or Direct3D errors as above. The longest I was able to play was with the vcache min-max set to 131072 and after 2 minutes and 20 seconds, I got the Direct3D error. Once again, no clear trends in the results.

#4. Once again as above with DOS legacy drivers turned off.

#4 RESULTS: Total lockups and UT2003 Build errors; although, I was able to complete my first map match in 3 minutes and 30 seconds, then start the second map and a lockup 1 minute into that one with 131072 as the vcache setting, then I got the UT2003 Build error. So, I guess you could say this was my best result overall for the weekend!

#5. As #3, but added MaxPhysPage=30000 to the [386Enh] section to limit the amount of RAM windows recognizes to 768MB (effectively running with 768MB instead). Also, the min-max vcache values tried were different (393216, 196608, 98304 and 65536).

#5 RESULTS: At 393216, I had an incompatible adapter error and the default desktop came up on the screen, WTF?! Matches ran for maximum of 6 seconds before UT2003 Build errors for the other values.

So, I'm done for now and plan on trying all this again once I reinstall Win98SE on this computer system (if ever, hehe). My guess is that I'll get XP in 8 months and install 10GB of RAM on my second system build in Feb. 2004 and be done with it. Since new games coming out lately seem to not run well in Win98SE (*cough* Unreal2 *cough*), then I'm sure I'll need XP for Doom3, UT2004, QuakeIV, etc. I'm glad other people have gotten this to work with 768MB and 1GB of RAM with Win98SE, but no luck here. For those of you that helped, thanks for everything!

 

[Nothinman]

What a waste of a weekend. You could have spent your time doing more productive things, like trying to get blood from a stone.

My guess is that I'll get XP in 8 months and install 10GB of RAM on my second system build in Feb. 2004 and be done with it.

Too bad you'll need a copy of Advanced Server to use 10G since Microsoft limits the addressable memory to make you pay more to be able to use more hardware, and even then you'll be running a 32-bit OS which means a max of 2G (3G with some tweaks) per-process.

 

[yukichigai]

Personally I had my copy of 98SE running on my box when I upgraded the entire system, including 1 gig of ram. The memory stuff worked fine, no patching or other diddling required, but what didn't work was my USB devices. I don't know if any of you have run into this but when I upgraded I got a black USB keyboard which would not work until I unplugged it from the slot and then plugged it in again. The same went for most of my USB devices; at the very least leaving my USB HD plugged in during startup would make it take nearly 5 minutes to even get to the windows screen. On top of that I attempted (foolishly) to install USB 2.0 drivers for my new mobo, which slowed the system down even more. Bottom line: 98SE just isn't upward compatible enough for me. Once I upgraded to 2k Pro I managed to get all my USB devices working on startup with no slowdown. On top of that I've found 2k has a lot of nifty features; case in point: auto-redialing for dial-up connections. Right now as I type this my computer is at home busily downloading and has been doing so for the past 4 days straight, no reboots. (Yes, I do play games on it as well) I guess if 98SE could be patched to be that stable I'd use it but until then I'm sticking to 2k Pro.

Anyway, it is interesting to see about the specifics of how to get 98SE working with newer systems. Maybe if I cared about that supposed extra <10 fps boost I'd run it for my games.

 

[SkaarjMaster]

2GB huh, well, I guess Microsoft still hasn't made a good operating system yet. I'm still waiting. How much more do I have to pay for this Advanced Server thing? 3GB with tweaks, where do I found out about this? Actually, I was thinking more like 4GB (10 was just a little extreme).

By the way, I did the blood from a stone thing the previous weekend and it works!
Wait, no, that was the blood from my fist, hehe.

Seriously, though, some people have gotten this to work fine and it was an interesting project for me anyway. I also did not think it was a waste of time.

 

[tcsenter]

I'm loving the "reasons" cited for why Windows 98SE/ME "sucks": because it can't do things it was never intended to do, while XP/2000 are the shiznit because they can do things they were intended to. BRILLIANT! A different flavor of the same logic would go a little something like:

"The Corvette sucks ass because it won't go through mud or snow that is 12 inches thick without getting stuck. Whereas, a Dodge Ram 4x4 is the shiznit because it can go through snow and mud easily." DUH!

Someone needs a water cooler affixed to their skull after doing all that high powered thinkun.

 

[Nothinman]

2GB huh, well, I guess Microsoft still hasn't made a good operating system yet

Microsoft has nothing to do with it, they're doing the best (arguably) that they can with the hardware they support, since x86 only does 32-bit memory addresses that's all they have to work with. Basically you get 4G Virtual Memory and that must be split up between the kernel and the currently running process, by default Windows does a 2/2 split so the kernel gets 2G and the current process gets 2G. Linux on the other hand does a 3/1 split giving the current process 3G, but there's still only 4G to go around.

Actually, I was thinking more like 4GB (10 was just a little extreme).

I think you'll need Server for 4G memory, but I can't remember for sure.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I think you'll need Server for 4G memory, but I can't remember for sure.

Straight from the source: Windows XP Pro supports up to 4GB of RAM (of course, the 2GB per process limit still exists).

 

[SkaarjMaster]

Looks like 4GB then. Anyone know when XP 64-bit will be released for general consumption?

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: rogue1979
Thugsrook, we are two of a kind, I agree with you 100%. I like Win2K also, I just don't see a benefit over Win98 in my personal computing.

same, i find a huge improvement when im running multiple instances of aprogram to use more than 512 megs, I just dont like xp. I think its lame to have to turn off 50 items to get a machine to run right. On the other hand, server2003 seesm to work very nicely as a workstation and I feel right at home in it.

/ducks head waiting to be struck by lightning or the "server os shouldnt be used as workstation" nut cases

I'm having a hard time figuring out why on earth you would say such a thing, you dont like Win XP because you have to "turn off 50 items to get it to run right" yet the $600+ 2003 Server which you would have to turn on 50 things to get it to run the way you want it to is okay?

And what's wrong with Win XP Pro?

FYI if you are running recent hardware and games they are all geared for NT based OSes and not Windows 98. I really think you need to review the Tom's Hardware OS guide.

-Spy

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: SkaarjMaster
Looks like 4GB then. Anyone know when XP 64-bit will be released for general consumption?

It already is, unless by "general consumption" you mean "not tied to the itanium"

-Spy

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: nutxosame, i find a huge improvement when im running multiple instances of aprogram to use more than 512 megs, I just dont like xp. I think its lame to have to turn off 50 items to get a machine to run right. On the other hand, server2003 seesm to work very nicely as a workstation and I feel right at home in it.

/ducks head waiting to be struck by lightning or the "server os shouldnt be used as workstation" nut cases

I'm having a hard time figuring out why on earth you would say such a thing, you dont like Win XP because you have to "turn off 50 items to get it to run right" yet the $600+ 2003 Server which you would have to turn on 50 things to get it to run the way you want it to is okay?

Not to mention the other 50 server-related things that you have to turn off to get it up to par with WinXP performance...

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
I'm loving the "reasons" cited for why Windows 98SE/ME "sucks": because it can't do things it was never intended to do, while XP/2000 are the shiznit because they can do things they were intended to. BRILLIANT!

That's not what I said.

98SE just isn't upward compatible enough for me.

That is what I said. In terms of the example you used I'm saying something like: "I don't like this Corvette because I drive in the snow and mud a lot and my 4x4 handles it better."

 

[Nothinman]

Not to mention the other 50 server-related things that you have to turn off to get it up to par with WinXP performance...

Actually 2K3 comes with almost everything disabled out of the box.

 

[tcsenter]

That's not what I said.

I didn't mention any names or reference any statements. A little defensive, eh?

 

[SkaarjMaster]

There's only one problem with that Tom's Hardware article, he didn't run Win98SE. WinME is THE worst OS in the world and always will be!

Yes, I meant does anyone know when XP 64-bit will be available for a lot more chips than just one?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: SkaarjMaster
There's only one problem with that Tom's Hardware article, he didn't run Win98SE. WinME is THE worst OS in the world and always will be!

Worst as far as crashing goes, but performance in high-end applications is just about as good as that of Windows 98, which is... well... I'd better not get started on that or all you Win98-is-everything-to-everyone people will flame me beyond death. :frown:

Yes, I meant does anyone know when XP 64-bit will be available for a lot more chips than just one?

WinXP-64 will only be available for 64 bit processors; the Itanium version is out now, and I'm not sure when the Opteron version will be out.

 

[Nothinman]

Yes, I meant does anyone know when XP 64-bit will be available for a lot more chips than just one?

A lot more what?

Microsoft will never support Sun UltraSparc, HP PA-RISC has been replaced by Itanic, DEC/Compaq/HP Alpha has been replaced by Itanic, SGI MIPS used to be supported by NT 4 (along with PPC, Alpha and x86) but I doubt they'll bring back that support.

As much as I like my UltraSparc and Alpha boxes, Microsoft couldn't care less. But since I don't like Windows, I couldn't care less either =)

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Yes, I meant does anyone know when XP 64-bit will be available for a lot more chips than just one?

A lot more what?

It only runs on Itanium Systems
Windows XP Pro. 64bit runs on the Itanium
Windows XP Pro. 64bit version 2003 runs on the Itanium 2 (& the origional Itanium)
There are also MS Server OSes that will run on the Itanium line.

As far as I know Microsoft has an OS in the beta stages that will run on the Opteron or the Athlon 64 but nothing that is currently available.

-Spy

 

[spyordie007]

Here we go, this is what I was looking for:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~69678,00.html

IBM joined AMD at a New York City launch event to announce its plans to offer a server product for high-performance computing based on the AMD Opteron processor. At the same event, Microsoft reiterated its commitment to developing a 64-bit operating system for the processor, with a beta version available in mid-2003.

So it's quite possible the Beta isnt even ready yet...

-Spy

 

[foxkm]

Here is a reccomendataion for Memory for specific OS's

Windows 95/b : 64 MB
Windows NT4 : 64-128MB
Windows 98 : 64-128MB
Windows ME: 128 MB
Windows 2000: 256 MB
Windows XP: 256 MB

Most people don't realize that having below these reccomendations is usualy hurting their performance, but
add over these amounts really doesn't effect performance in the computer as your average user won't do much to surpass these limits. The advanced user will usually need more while performing tasks which really uses ram like playing big 3d games or doing cad (professional work)....But mose these people are smart enough to stick with 2k/XP for these tasks.

Windows 9X is really bad due to the 2mb heap which fill up very quickly and will slow the system down to a crawl. Adding more ram doesn't do jack for this problem. It's a inherent design flaw in the 9x series.

 

[SkaarjMaster]

yeh, but for most people this won't happen. I don't think this has ever happened to me. I don't use my computer for a server and don't have it running 24/7. Even when it IS running all day, I never get any of these memory errors. Sometimes if you make the swap file big enough, you can get around some of these heap problems. I will say that the article at AnandTech on this problem is very interesting though.

I will say one thing though. Win98SE ran flawlessly on my 440BX motherboard with 256MB of RAM. Where a lot of people had various problems at this time with it, I never had one related to the OS. But now that games are starting to wane support for 98, I will be switching to XP sometime in the future (second computer). But I will keep my present box to run older games for a while. Looks like I may have to get an overhead fan for the computer room though; hehe, it will get awfully hot in there during the summer!