Memory problem

[kehnn]

Here's a good link on Virtual memory Optimization as well.

http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsXP/expertzone/columns/mcfedries/03june16.asp

 

[Ibn]

Not the file itself, but depending on how the allocation is in regards to different processes requesting space, the data stored by a specific process (request instances) might get somewhat fragmented (i.e. not stored continuously) if another process puts in a request in between writes.. unless it's locked access, in which case we could still end up with fragmented data (though not very related) from the same process (like a game) but not 'same request' instance being fragmented.. but that's inherent in the system.

Ahh, I see what you mean, good point

There is some slight chance of this while in windows, especially if they are using the 'write behind' caching and silly enough to be running things in the background when defragging, which some folks certainly are
However, if you use perfectdisk (which I'm strongly suggesting) this will not happen when you perform an 'Offline' defrag, as the operation occurs before windows loads and perfectdisk has drive access to itself.

Hmm. Ibn, do you know whether the process of setting virtual memory min/max is any different with Win98SE? Thanks.

Yep, almost the same thing;

Start->Control panel->System->Performance->Virtual memory->'Let me specify my own virtual memory settings'

Ignore the warnings, and from there, pick the minimum and maximum (make them identical '512 and 512'. Reboot. Defrag.

Or set them to '0 and 0', reboot, defrag, then set them to '512 and 512'. if you want to be picky about it

Same technique, the only essential difference is the file system, your using fat32 or fat16 instead of NTFS, which to the user is rather irrelevant.

Have fun


Edit-

If you are using Win98se, 98, 95, or Me. They have known issues with having to much ram allocated. Lots of odd issues, so make sure the sum of real memory and virtual memory do not exceed 1024... See here;
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912
and here;
http://support.microsoft.com/common...&LL=kbwin98search or kbwin98sesearch&Sz=hwmem
This one is really funny;
Computer May Reboot Continuously with More Than 1.5 GB of RAM

 

[Owen]

So, when I put my extra stick of RAM in tomorrow and get 1GB RAM in my win98SE machine, I should set my virtual RAM to zero. Are you sure of that?

 

[Ibn]

So, when I put my extra stick of RAM in tomorrow and get 1GB RAM in my win98SE machine, I should set my virtual RAM to zero. Are you sure of that?

Yes, not only am I sure about that, Microsoft is too
read this;
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912

You could get away with a 512meg swap file, but you'd have to change a few settings in the system.ini file, I wouldn't bother with it, unless you have some problems running without one. You'll notice one of Microsoft's 'workarounds' is to limit windows to using half of your ram (from above link).
Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less.

Thats just absurd. You're far better off with 1gig of Ram, then 512 megs of Ram with a 512meg swap file. But this is one of the many reasons why nobody officially supports windows 98 or 95 anymore. Quite simply, win98se is not much of an operating system, it is an outdated and poor design with massive stability issues, you should upgrade to Windows Xp when it is feasible for you.

Check out the life-cycle chart from MS;
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];LifeWin

Extended hotfix support for Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition ended on 30-Jun-2003. Extended hotfix support for Windows Millennium ended on 31-Dec-2003... Microsoft will not publicly release security hotfixes for Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, or Windows Millennium Edition.


have fun

 

[jpd]

You could get away with a 512meg swap file, but you'd have to change a few settings in the system.ini file, I wouldn't bother with it, unless you have some problems running without one. You'll notice one of Microsoft's 'workarounds' is to limit windows to using half of your ram (from above link).
Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less.

Thats just absurd. You're far better off with 1gig of Ram, then 512 megs of Ram with a 512meg swap file. But this is one of the many reasons why nobody officially supports windows 98 or 95 anymore. Quite simply, win98se is not much of an operating system, it is an outdated and poor design with massive stability issues, you should upgrade to Windows Xp when it is feasible for you.

In an ideal world, you would (obviously) be correct. However, this is not an ideal world, and in a not-so-ideal world you have suckers (like me ) that in a moment of complete blackout of brain activity have bought a system with an Athlon processor, paired with a VIA chipset.

Why do I mention this particular combination? Well, this combination cannot run Windows XP reliably because of 'infinite loop' freezing problems, and are thus stuck with Windows 98 SE.

Jan Peter

 

[Ibn]

In an ideal world, you would (obviously) be correct. However, this is not an ideal world, and in a not-so-ideal world you have suckers (like me ) that in a moment of complete blackout of brain activity have bought a system with an Athlon processor, paired with a VIA chipset.

Why do I mention this particular combination? Well, this combination cannot run Windows XP reliably because of 'infinite loop' freezing problems, and are thus stuck with Windows 98 SE.

Jan Peter

You poor man, the old via chipsets are crap

The blame squarely rests on Via's shoulders, though they won't admit it due to legalities, they did not follow a few specifications to the letter when making their kt266 chipset, and a couple models of the kt133, if I recall correctly. In particular the PCI Busmastering and AGP specifications. I heard the issue was fixed in the kt333 and later Via chipsets. Though I only build AMD boxes with Nvidia or SiS chipsets to this day....

Essentially this means massive conflicts with a variety of soundcards and graphics cards when the system is stressed, like during gaming or a powerful application. The only real workarounds I know of are turning off side band addressing and fastwrites in the bios, never using a soundblaster sound card in the box, and increasing the 'PCI latency' setting in the bios to 128. That should get you a fairly stable box.

Buying a new motherboard is the best solution unfortunetly. (DFI, ASUS, Abit and Epox make decent enough stuff)

Good luck with 98se

 

[jpd]

<grin>I have worked out a perfectly good working solution myself. NOT installing the VIA 4in1 driver set also results in a perfectly stable system. In this case, my AGP support (GART, amongst other things) comes from both Microsoft and NVidia.

Unfortunately, this does not work with Windows XP, because Microsoft has dropped it's own AGP drivers and opted for those blasted VIA ones instead.

Hence my comment

Jan Peter

 

[Owen]

OK, thanks very much.

Strange that I haven't seen any of those problems yet, and I had 1 GB installed for 6 months until both sticks broke recently. I installed 512 first to check that the RAM was the problem, and I'm about to stick another one in.

Not at all sure why they both went at once. Maybe a power spike or something.

Anyway, I agree about the win98 stability problems. I will try to find time to get XP.

 

[Ibn]

OK, thanks very much.

Strange that I haven't seen any of those problems yet, and I had 1 GB installed for 6 months until both sticks broke recently. I installed 512 first to check that the RAM was the problem, and I'm about to stick another one in.

Not at all sure why they both went at once. Maybe a power spike or something.

Anyway, I agree about the win98 stability problems. I will try to find time to get XP.

You've been a lucky man so far

 

[Castellon]

Just thought I would mention this in here as well.
jpd discovered that renaming the Tiles file will give you poorer graphics but better performance.
Something to try for the desperate.