|
-
WinME can't handle large RAM
A word to the wise. I have a 1 gig AMD and 512MB of ram and I was using Windows ME. I tried to install another 512MB and it freaked out. When I took out the extra RAM, I couldn't boot because it couldn't recognize the hard drive. To make a long story short, I found out that WinME can't support more than 512mb. It was extremely hard to find out the info from the Windows web site. There are some fixes available, but it basically tricks windows into only seeing 512mb. (So why buy more?). I ended up loosing the data in the My Documents folder, and some of my programs were corrupted. In the end I loaded Windows 2000, and it has been screaming ever since.
Aloha
-
Ohio State r0x0rz!
Re: WinME can't handle large RAM
-
Ultimate Member
Re: WinME can't handle large RAM
-
Windows 9x cannot actually utilise over 256mb properley. It still improves, but it can't take full advantage. This is due to limitations in the 9x kernel and also ones imposed by DOS. (yes, it's still there in ME)
NuKeS
-
Drugs amy be the road to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route.
-
Ultimate Member
okay guys, was gonna load another 128 or 256 in 3 winMe machines to take them to 384 or 512 megs, then upgrade some celerons to PIIIs
is Nuke right? 
p.s. Nuke, no offense here - sometimes another post clarifies issues and I'm curious because these threads turn into some pretty good debates (heck, it's a little embarassing but I've had guys once or twice tell me I'm flat out wrong on something)
p.p.s got the RAM laying chips around, I know the cpus are the best upgrade but need to raise some $$
Last edited by rmanet; 09-09-2002 at 01:22 PM.
-
Ultimate Member
DOS maxes out at 64 Meg
and not 256 Meg
and Win9x does actually work with anything over 512 meg, up to 999 meg
but it requires you to limit the size of the cache, that's what turns Win9x crazy.
yet regardless of wether you have 64meg or 10 Gig or ram
win9x handles Resources Poorly
which is restricted by the 640 Kbyte
of the old DOS Command.com
so in fact Win9x like DOS, it never uses anything more than 1 meg to do the real job, all that extra memory is only used to store stuff in RAM, but not for real usage.
so it's true that Win9x does not really benefit from the more RAM, just like old DOS, since it's only used more like a RAM cache.
there are a few websites that explains all these in details 
-
Extreme Member!
Originally posted by rmanet
is Nuke right?
IMHO, anything over 128MB of RAM in Win9X is like throwing pearls to the swine.
-
Junior Member
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AllGamer
[B]DOS maxes out at 64 Meg
and not 256 Meg
and Win9x does actually work with anything over 512 meg, up to 999 meg
but it requires you to limit the size of the cache, that's what turns Win9x crazy.
yet regardless of wether you have 64meg or 10 Gig or ram
win9x handles Resources Poorly
which is restricted by the 640 Kbyte
of the old DOS Command.com
[\b][\QUOTE]
Yes and no. Whats happening here is a confusion between real mode and protected mode. The old dos stuff if you are using real mode drivers and or booting to dos for games then yes ..you have some severe limitations... Win98 and better (win95 was more of a shell) do not need any dos files to run. What is needed in 98/me is a large l2 cache... please recall that the l2 is what interacts with the memory... the l1 with the cpu. So... MB with 512k cache on the mb can only effectivly cache 128mb of system memory. a 1 meg cache 384 mb system memory and a 2meg cache 1 gig. (recall these are bit caches not byte.)
As for ME... ME has many many known issues..it was singularly the worst OS since dos 6.0. The error you experienced is not due to memory per se, but what appears to be a controller error and/or disk cache error. At IBM, our tests with ME demonstrated that ME was incredibly finicky about matched ram and ram density... <shudder> gads what a POS ME was...
Also, blaming MS for poor application design is not quite fair. 98SE handles resources quite fine... only time resources become an issue is if the computer is left on for more than 34 days at which time the system crashes, or poorly written programs like netscape which have serious memory leaks... On a well set-up system, 98SE is stable and seriously quick.
If you want performance and stability, win98 se/WinXP dual boot. (altho XP is far more sensitive to memory timing issues.)
-
Yeah, it still works, but it is not used in the same way. just to back myself up, I used to have 384mb in a WinME machine and never had any problems. And I have seen 98se running on 512 ddr ram. The time when it fooks up is when you try and disable Virtual Memory, even though you have more ram now than your swapfile was before.
NuKeS
-
Drugs amy be the road to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route.
-
W9X "big-mem" problem can stem from vcache addressing. Putting this in System.ini should help:
[vcache]
MaxFileCache=163840
for a 160MB limit (1024 x 160). That should be enough -- M$$ recommends 512MB max, but that's unnecessarily large. Any "Max" setting should be less than the actual hard mem amount to be useful.
Last edited by BFlurie; 09-09-2002 at 02:00 PM.
-
Don't get me wrong. Up until this point I was in love with ME. I never had any problems with it, and it was running well. I do some playing around with digital pictures and videos, and that is why I wanted more RAM. I read about 10 articles on the Windows site, and they reiterrated everything all of you are saying. The reality is why should we have to trick our OS to partially use the RAM. By the way, how do you like XP. I have to admit I haven't been impressed
-
Gone Fishin'
Some folks told me I couldn't run 512mb ram with win 98SE but I put it in anyway. System is stable, fast and only crashes with known buggy software. I just let Windows handle virtual memory and so far no problem. Will wonders never cease.
-
Ultimate Member
I personally Dislike XP
it's just a Fancy Win2k with too much Shell and metaframes on top
Win2K is solid and fast
and i use Win98 for games
with 2 Gig of RAM
which Win98 can only take advantage of 1.5 gig
999 meg on RAM
and
511 meg on Cache
-
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;Q304943
Symptoms
If your computer has more than 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of memory (RAM), the computer may reboot continuously when you try to start Windows Millennium Edition (Me) or Windows 98.
Or, when you try to install Windows Me or Windows 98 with more than 1.5 GB of RAM installed, Setup may stop responding (hang) or reboot continuously.
Cause
Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle more than 1 GB of RAM. More than 1 GB can lead to potential system instability.
-
Junior Member
Personally, I think WinXP is the best thing since sliced bread... This coming from a reformed Linux fan.
I currently keep a dual boot system simply because some of my favorite games just won't run on an ntfs filesystem and, well, putting fat32 with XP is like putting bicycle tires on a Farrari.
XP has amazed me with its AI... It self optomizes to a level that is quite scary. I couln't do much better a job manually. Games are as fast in XP as 98, and XP supports more features. The 2D graphics quality of XP are also exceptional and far superior to 9x. And way way faster. DVD, MPEG, AVI, QT all run smoother.
This is the first time Microsoft has impressed me with an OS. Now if only we could get rid of the spyware built-in to the OS and get rid of messenger once and for all (I have a personal hatered for MSN Messenger, and AOL AIM  ... ICQ is tolerable, but getting to be as bad as the others). I just wish MS would provide a way to install or uninstall all components of the OS (a la Unix).
FoxW
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Reply With Quote
