RAM problems

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Robert Baer, Dec 18, 2003.

  1. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    1) Win98SE does not load with 2GBytes or 3Gbytes of RAM; it bitches (get
    this) "Insufficent memory...".
    How do i get it to work with at least 2Gbytes of RAM, or better yet,
    3Gbytes?

    2) Win2K does not load with 3Gbytes of RAM; it re-boots before the
    desktop gets filled.
    It does accept 2Gbytes of RAM; how do i get it to work with 3Gbytes of
    RAM?

    3) Does WinNT or WinXP allow 3Gbytes of RAM, and if so, do they have a
    DOS like Win98 or CMD like Win2K?
    Robert Baer, Dec 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Baer

    derek / nul Guest

    On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:54:42 GMT, Robert Baer <> wrote:

    >1) Win98SE does not load with 2GBytes or 3Gbytes of RAM; it bitches (get
    >this) "Insufficent memory...".
    > How do i get it to work with at least 2Gbytes of RAM, or better yet,
    >3Gbytes?


    There are instructions on getting 98 to 'work' with more than 512Mb, its to do
    with cache settings.

    Anybody trying to run 98 with 3Gb of ram needs help, 98 can only 'use' 512Mb,
    the rest for cache only.

    >2) Win2K does not load with 3Gbytes of RAM; it re-boots before the
    >desktop gets filled.
    > It does accept 2Gbytes of RAM; how do i get it to work with 3Gbytes of
    >RAM?


    Have you tried M$ KB?

    >3) Does WinNT or WinXP allow 3Gbytes of RAM, and if so, do they have a
    >DOS like Win98 or CMD like Win2K?


    That much ram is likely to be limited by motherboard?
    Win2k and XP are built on the NT kernel, so they have cmd

    Derek
    derek / nul, Dec 18, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Baer

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    derek / nul <> wrote in
    news::

    > That much ram is likely to be limited by motherboard?


    It should be stated more clearly that NT/2000/XP can easily handle 3 GB of
    physical RAM. The limitation with them is 4 GB, unless you are running a
    machine with something like a Xeon that can do Page Address Extension (PAE)
    which will bump that up a little bit.

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
    DeMoN LaG, Dec 18, 2003
    #3
  4. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    derek / nul wrote:
    >
    > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:54:42 GMT, Robert Baer <> wrote:
    >
    > >1) Win98SE does not load with 2GBytes or 3Gbytes of RAM; it bitches (get
    > >this) "Insufficent memory...".
    > > How do i get it to work with at least 2Gbytes of RAM, or better yet,
    > >3Gbytes?

    >
    > There are instructions on getting 98 to 'work' with more than 512Mb, its to do
    > with cache settings.
    >
    > Anybody trying to run 98 with 3Gb of ram needs help, 98 can only 'use' 512Mb,
    > the rest for cache only.
    >
    > >2) Win2K does not load with 3Gbytes of RAM; it re-boots before the
    > >desktop gets filled.
    > > It does accept 2Gbytes of RAM; how do i get it to work with 3Gbytes of
    > >RAM?

    >
    > Have you tried M$ KB?
    >
    > >3) Does WinNT or WinXP allow 3Gbytes of RAM, and if so, do they have a
    > >DOS like Win98 or CMD like Win2K?

    >
    > That much ram is likely to be limited by motherboard?
    > Win2k and XP are built on the NT kernel, so they have cmd
    >
    > Derek


    My motherboard accepts up to 1Gbyte sticks in each of three slots for
    a total of 3Gbytes maximum (stated spec), so the 3Gbytes is allowed, and
    the BIOS sees whatever (and where ever) i plug in.

    Well, i have been running Win98SE with 1Gbyte of RAM for a long time
    with no problems.
    And i have some multi-million digit math routines i wrote that can use
    all of the available memory; if i go for enough digits, the RAM gets
    (almost) filled and then virtual memory (ie: HD sloshing) comes into
    play.

    So, on that basis, it would seem that that 512K "limit" is incorrect.

    What is this Micro$oft "KB"?

    Good to hear that concerning WinNT and WinXP; but do any of them
    accept 3Gbytes?
    Or a way to get Win2K to allow 3Gbytes?
    Robert Baer, Dec 19, 2003
    #4
  5. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    DeMoN LaG wrote:
    >
    > derek / nul <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > That much ram is likely to be limited by motherboard?

    >
    > It should be stated more clearly that NT/2000/XP can easily handle 3 GB of
    > physical RAM. The limitation with them is 4 GB, unless you are running a
    > machine with something like a Xeon that can do Page Address Extension (PAE)
    > which will bump that up a little bit.
    >
    > --
    > AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    > email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    > website: under construction
    > Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    > email/IM for rates/services


    So, if Win2K can allow 3Gbytes, what exactly should i do (with only
    1Gbyte or 2Gbytes RAM) to then get it to accept the full 3Gbytes?

    Any "work-around" for Win98SE other than (hassle of) unplugging the
    RAM when i want to rin it?

    I work with three OSes; DOS7, Win98SE and Win2K; and sometimes switch
    around a number of times in a day.
    Robert Baer, Dec 19, 2003
    #5
  6. Robert Baer

    derek / nul Guest

    On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:22:45 GMT, Robert Baer <> wrote:

    > My motherboard accepts up to 1Gbyte sticks in each of three slots for
    >a total of 3Gbytes maximum (stated spec), so the 3Gbytes is allowed, and
    >the BIOS sees whatever (and where ever) i plug in.
    >
    > Well, i have been running Win98SE with 1Gbyte of RAM for a long time
    >with no problems.
    > And i have some multi-million digit math routines i wrote that can use
    >all of the available memory; if i go for enough digits, the RAM gets
    >(almost) filled and then virtual memory (ie: HD sloshing) comes into
    >play.
    >
    > So, on that basis, it would seem that that 512K "limit" is incorrect.


    MIcrosoft Knowledge Base (KB) article outlining 98 memory problem
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871&Product=w98
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912&Product=w98
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;181862&Product=w98

    > What is this Micro$oft "KB"?
    >
    > Good to hear that concerning WinNT and WinXP; but do any of them
    >accept 3Gbytes?
    > Or a way to get Win2K to allow 3Gbytes?


    Win2000 memory

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;142719&Product=win2000

    Derek
    derek / nul, Dec 19, 2003
    #6
  7. Robert Baer

    Thor Guest

    "derek / nul" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:22:45 GMT, Robert Baer <>

    wrote:
    >
    > > My motherboard accepts up to 1Gbyte sticks in each of three slots for
    > >a total of 3Gbytes maximum (stated spec), so the 3Gbytes is allowed, and
    > >the BIOS sees whatever (and where ever) i plug in.
    > >
    > > Well, i have been running Win98SE with 1Gbyte of RAM for a long time
    > >with no problems.
    > > And i have some multi-million digit math routines i wrote that can use
    > >all of the available memory; if i go for enough digits, the RAM gets
    > >(almost) filled and then virtual memory (ie: HD sloshing) comes into
    > >play.
    > >
    > > So, on that basis, it would seem that that 512K "limit" is incorrect.

    >
    > MIcrosoft Knowledge Base (KB) article outlining 98 memory problem
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871&Product=w98
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912&Product=w98
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;181862&Product=w98
    >
    > > What is this Micro$oft "KB"?
    > >
    > > Good to hear that concerning WinNT and WinXP; but do any of them
    > >accept 3Gbytes?
    > > Or a way to get Win2K to allow 3Gbytes?

    >
    > Win2000 memory
    >
    >

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;142719&Product=win2000
    >
    > Derek


    I believe the reason for the 512MB figure, is because beyond that amount,
    Vcache may consume all the remaining available addresses. Hence, the
    workaround is to limit the amount of memory that Vcache can use, not windows
    in general. Windows can still allocate the memory safely to programs from
    512MB up to 1GB. So the limit according to microsoft is really 1GB or more,
    not 512MB.
    Thor, Dec 19, 2003
    #7
  8. Thor wrote:

    > "derek / nul" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:22:45 GMT, Robert Baer <>

    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >>> My motherboard accepts up to 1Gbyte sticks in each of three slots for
    >>>a total of 3Gbytes maximum (stated spec), so the 3Gbytes is allowed, and
    >>>the BIOS sees whatever (and where ever) i plug in.
    >>>
    >>> Well, i have been running Win98SE with 1Gbyte of RAM for a long time
    >>>with no problems.
    >>> And i have some multi-million digit math routines i wrote that can use
    >>>all of the available memory; if i go for enough digits, the RAM gets
    >>>(almost) filled and then virtual memory (ie: HD sloshing) comes into
    >>>play.
    >>>
    >>> So, on that basis, it would seem that that 512K "limit" is incorrect.

    >>
    >>MIcrosoft Knowledge Base (KB) article outlining 98 memory problem
    >>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871&Product=w98
    >>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912&Product=w98
    >>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;181862&Product=w98
    >>
    >>
    >>> What is this Micro$oft "KB"?
    >>>
    >>> Good to hear that concerning WinNT and WinXP; but do any of them
    >>>accept 3Gbytes?
    >>> Or a way to get Win2K to allow 3Gbytes?

    >>
    >>Win2000 memory
    >>
    >>

    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;142719&Product=win2000
    >
    >>Derek

    >
    >
    > I believe the reason for the 512MB figure, is because beyond that amount,
    > Vcache may consume all the remaining available addresses. Hence, the
    > workaround is to limit the amount of memory that Vcache can use, not windows
    > in general. Windows can still allocate the memory safely to programs from
    > 512MB up to 1GB. So the limit according to microsoft is really 1GB or more,
    > not 512MB.
    >
    >


    I saw nothing in any of those articles claiming that anything over 512MB
    is only used for cache either. But I am curious-the first article says
    Win98/ME has problems with "1GB or more". That seems to imply that you
    can't use a 1GB stick with those and the maximum memory the OP could use
    (with 3 slots) would be 896MB (512MB + 256MB + 128MB). Correct?
    Calvin Crumrine, Dec 19, 2003
    #8
  9. Robert Baer

    Thor Guest


    > >
    > >
    > > I believe the reason for the 512MB figure, is because beyond that

    amount,
    > > Vcache may consume all the remaining available addresses. Hence, the
    > > workaround is to limit the amount of memory that Vcache can use, not

    windows
    > > in general. Windows can still allocate the memory safely to programs

    from
    > > 512MB up to 1GB. So the limit according to microsoft is really 1GB or

    more,
    > > not 512MB.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > I saw nothing in any of those articles claiming that anything over 512MB
    > is only used for cache either. But I am curious-the first article says
    > Win98/ME has problems with "1GB or more". That seems to imply that you
    > can't use a 1GB stick with those and the maximum memory the OP could use
    > (with 3 slots) would be 896MB (512MB + 256MB + 128MB). Correct?


    I would assume so.
    Thor, Dec 19, 2003
    #9
  10. Thor wrote:
    >>>
    >>>I believe the reason for the 512MB figure, is because beyond that

    >
    > amount,
    >
    >>>Vcache may consume all the remaining available addresses. Hence, the
    >>>workaround is to limit the amount of memory that Vcache can use, not

    >
    > windows
    >
    >>>in general. Windows can still allocate the memory safely to programs

    >
    > from
    >
    >>>512MB up to 1GB. So the limit according to microsoft is really 1GB or

    >
    > more,
    >
    >>>not 512MB.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>I saw nothing in any of those articles claiming that anything over 512MB
    >>is only used for cache either. But I am curious-the first article says
    >>Win98/ME has problems with "1GB or more". That seems to imply that you
    >>can't use a 1GB stick with those and the maximum memory the OP could use
    >>(with 3 slots) would be 896MB (512MB + 256MB + 128MB). Correct?

    >
    >
    > I would assume so.
    >
    >
    >

    Curious. I'd always heard that 1GB was the maximum for Win98. Probably
    just sloppy speech. Thanks.
    Calvin Crumrine, Dec 19, 2003
    #10
  11. Robert Baer

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    Robert Baer <> wrote in news:3FE2A805.C20B63E1
    @earthlink.net:

    > So, if Win2K can allow 3Gbytes, what exactly should i do (with only
    > 1Gbyte or 2Gbytes RAM) to then get it to accept the full 3Gbytes?


    You shouldn't have to do anything, unless you manually told it to limit the
    amount of RAM it uses

    > Any "work-around" for Win98SE other than (hassle of) unplugging the
    > RAM when i want to rin it?


    Follow the links to the articles on Microsoft's Knowledge Base and limit
    the amount of memory for VCache, or set 98 up so it only tries to use 1 Gig
    of RAM or less

    > I work with three OSes; DOS7, Win98SE and Win2K; and sometimes switch
    > around a number of times in a day.


    DOS7 isn't really an OS...

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
    DeMoN LaG, Dec 19, 2003
    #11
  12. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    DeMoN LaG wrote:
    >
    > Robert Baer <> wrote in news:3FE2A805.C20B63E1
    > @earthlink.net:
    >
    > > So, if Win2K can allow 3Gbytes, what exactly should i do (with only
    > > 1Gbyte or 2Gbytes RAM) to then get it to accept the full 3Gbytes?

    >
    > You shouldn't have to do anything, unless you manually told it to limit the
    > amount of RAM it uses
    >
    > > Any "work-around" for Win98SE other than (hassle of) unplugging the
    > > RAM when i want to rin it?

    >
    > Follow the links to the articles on Microsoft's Knowledge Base and limit
    > the amount of memory for VCache, or set 98 up so it only tries to use 1 Gig
    > of RAM or less
    >
    > > I work with three OSes; DOS7, Win98SE and Win2K; and sometimes switch
    > > around a number of times in a day.

    >
    > DOS7 isn't really an OS...
    >
    > --
    > AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    > email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    > website: under construction
    > Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    > email/IM for rates/services


    I did nothing related to RAM in Win2K; it was installed when i had
    only 1Gbyte of RAM.
    Where do i look in Win2K and what do i change relative to RAM?
    I tinkered around (both Win98SE and Win2K) and found nothing
    "obvious"....
    Robert Baer, Dec 20, 2003
    #12
  13. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    derek / nul wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:22:45 GMT, Robert Baer <> wrote:
    >
    > > My motherboard accepts up to 1Gbyte sticks in each of three slots for
    > >a total of 3Gbytes maximum (stated spec), so the 3Gbytes is allowed, and
    > >the BIOS sees whatever (and where ever) i plug in.
    > >
    > > Well, i have been running Win98SE with 1Gbyte of RAM for a long time
    > >with no problems.
    > > And i have some multi-million digit math routines i wrote that can use
    > >all of the available memory; if i go for enough digits, the RAM gets
    > >(almost) filled and then virtual memory (ie: HD sloshing) comes into
    > >play.
    > >
    > > So, on that basis, it would seem that that 512K "limit" is incorrect.

    >
    > MIcrosoft Knowledge Base (KB) article outlining 98 memory problem
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871&Product=w98
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912&Product=w98
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;181862&Product=w98
    >
    > > What is this Micro$oft "KB"?
    > >
    > > Good to hear that concerning WinNT and WinXP; but do any of them
    > >accept 3Gbytes?
    > > Or a way to get Win2K to allow 3Gbytes?

    >
    > Win2000 memory
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;142719&Product=win2000
    >
    > Derek


    The first reference mentions that Win98, Win98Se will not work with
    1Gbyte of RAM, and my experience (ie: reality) indicates that Win98Se
    *does* work reliably with 1Gbyte of RAM.
    Furthermore, i do not get a blue screen with 2Gbytes or 3Gbytes of
    RAM.
    So on 2 accounts, that cannot be trusted.

    The second reference also has the incorrect 512Mbyte statement.
    However, there are a number of (what seems) *useful* info
    (**THANKS**).

    The third reference gives more detailed info concerning one refeernce
    found in the second; relate to MaxPhysPage.
    An excelent addendum (**THANKS**).

    The last reference concerns Win2K, and the symptoms mentioned do not
    fit.
    However, it does give me an idea to see if i can alter/configure
    paged-pool memory and non-paged-pool memory.
    Something to try, anyway...
    Thanks.


    *************

    I really appreciate these references, very specific and appears to be
    able to give me a "fix".
    Robert Baer, Dec 20, 2003
    #13
  14. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    Thor wrote:
    >
    > "derek / nul" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:22:45 GMT, Robert Baer <>

    > wrote:
    > >
    > > > My motherboard accepts up to 1Gbyte sticks in each of three slots for
    > > >a total of 3Gbytes maximum (stated spec), so the 3Gbytes is allowed, and
    > > >the BIOS sees whatever (and where ever) i plug in.
    > > >
    > > > Well, i have been running Win98SE with 1Gbyte of RAM for a long time
    > > >with no problems.
    > > > And i have some multi-million digit math routines i wrote that can use
    > > >all of the available memory; if i go for enough digits, the RAM gets
    > > >(almost) filled and then virtual memory (ie: HD sloshing) comes into
    > > >play.
    > > >
    > > > So, on that basis, it would seem that that 512K "limit" is incorrect.

    > >
    > > MIcrosoft Knowledge Base (KB) article outlining 98 memory problem
    > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871&Product=w98
    > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912&Product=w98
    > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;181862&Product=w98
    > >
    > > > What is this Micro$oft "KB"?
    > > >
    > > > Good to hear that concerning WinNT and WinXP; but do any of them
    > > >accept 3Gbytes?
    > > > Or a way to get Win2K to allow 3Gbytes?

    > >
    > > Win2000 memory
    > >
    > >

    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;142719&Product=win2000
    > >
    > > Derek

    >
    > I believe the reason for the 512MB figure, is because beyond that amount,
    > Vcache may consume all the remaining available addresses. Hence, the
    > workaround is to limit the amount of memory that Vcache can use, not windows
    > in general. Windows can still allocate the memory safely to programs from
    > 512MB up to 1GB. So the limit according to microsoft is really 1GB or more,
    > not 512MB.


    Due to my experience with 1Gbytes of RAM, i tend to agree.
    Robert Baer, Dec 20, 2003
    #14
  15. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    Calvin Crumrine wrote:
    >
    > Thor wrote:
    >
    > > "derek / nul" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >
    > >>On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:22:45 GMT, Robert Baer <>

    > >
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >>> My motherboard accepts up to 1Gbyte sticks in each of three slots for
    > >>>a total of 3Gbytes maximum (stated spec), so the 3Gbytes is allowed, and
    > >>>the BIOS sees whatever (and where ever) i plug in.
    > >>>
    > >>> Well, i have been running Win98SE with 1Gbyte of RAM for a long time
    > >>>with no problems.
    > >>> And i have some multi-million digit math routines i wrote that can use
    > >>>all of the available memory; if i go for enough digits, the RAM gets
    > >>>(almost) filled and then virtual memory (ie: HD sloshing) comes into
    > >>>play.
    > >>>
    > >>> So, on that basis, it would seem that that 512K "limit" is incorrect.
    > >>
    > >>MIcrosoft Knowledge Base (KB) article outlining 98 memory problem
    > >>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871&Product=w98
    > >>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912&Product=w98
    > >>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;181862&Product=w98
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>> What is this Micro$oft "KB"?
    > >>>
    > >>> Good to hear that concerning WinNT and WinXP; but do any of them
    > >>>accept 3Gbytes?
    > >>> Or a way to get Win2K to allow 3Gbytes?
    > >>
    > >>Win2000 memory
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;142719&Product=win2000
    > >
    > >>Derek

    > >
    > >
    > > I believe the reason for the 512MB figure, is because beyond that amount,
    > > Vcache may consume all the remaining available addresses. Hence, the
    > > workaround is to limit the amount of memory that Vcache can use, not windows
    > > in general. Windows can still allocate the memory safely to programs from
    > > 512MB up to 1GB. So the limit according to microsoft is really 1GB or more,
    > > not 512MB.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > I saw nothing in any of those articles claiming that anything over 512MB
    > is only used for cache either. But I am curious-the first article says
    > Win98/ME has problems with "1GB or more". That seems to imply that you
    > can't use a 1GB stick with those and the maximum memory the OP could use
    > (with 3 slots) would be 896MB (512MB + 256MB + 128MB). Correct?


    Well, my experience sez "incorrect".
    At least 1Gbytes does work reliably in Win98SE.
    Unfortunately, i do not have any smaller RAM sticks to try and see how
    much over 1Gbytes of RAM is also acceptable.
    Robert Baer, Dec 20, 2003
    #15
  16. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    Calvin Crumrine wrote:
    >
    > Thor wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>I believe the reason for the 512MB figure, is because beyond that

    > >
    > > amount,
    > >
    > >>>Vcache may consume all the remaining available addresses. Hence, the
    > >>>workaround is to limit the amount of memory that Vcache can use, not

    > >
    > > windows
    > >
    > >>>in general. Windows can still allocate the memory safely to programs

    > >
    > > from
    > >
    > >>>512MB up to 1GB. So the limit according to microsoft is really 1GB or

    > >
    > > more,
    > >
    > >>>not 512MB.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>I saw nothing in any of those articles claiming that anything over 512MB
    > >>is only used for cache either. But I am curious-the first article says
    > >>Win98/ME has problems with "1GB or more". That seems to imply that you
    > >>can't use a 1GB stick with those and the maximum memory the OP could use
    > >>(with 3 slots) would be 896MB (512MB + 256MB + 128MB). Correct?

    > >
    > >
    > > I would assume so.
    > >
    > >
    > >

    > Curious. I'd always heard that 1GB was the maximum for Win98. Probably
    > just sloppy speech. Thanks.


    1Gbyte may be the max; i cannot say.
    I can only state that 1Gbytes of RAM works fine, and 2Gbytes or
    3Gbytes of RAM do not work.
    See my earlier answer (above).
    Robert Baer, Dec 20, 2003
    #16
  17. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    RAM problem update

    In Win98SE, this is what i have discovered:
    1) Using Msconfig and selecting advanced, changing Limit Memory To <> MB
    acts the same as selecting System.Ini and editing [386Enh]
    MaxPhysPage=<> (within limits).
    The limit is that MaxPhysPage should be no more than 3E6FF; else one
    gets a pencil icon in front of it and the value will be ignored.
    2) Attempts to add anything in [VCache] also gets the pencil icon; so
    the "recommended" MinFileCache= and MaxFileCache= entries are *ignored*,
    meaning they are not understood as valid entries.
    3) Using Msconfig and selecting advanced with 1Gbytes of RAM available,
    one *must* enter a number between 968 and 999 (Mbytes) for the OS to
    recognize your video board and/or driver.
    Any smaller value (eg: the "recommended" 512Mbytes) causes an error
    message that "there is a problem with your display setup" and a video
    default of 640X480, 16 colors.
    The Device Manager reports the correct video board, the correct
    monitor, and *zero* problems with either.
    4) With 2Gbytes or 3Gbytes of RAM, and a Limit Memory To 999 MB, at
    least Win98SE boots without the stupid "insufficient memory" message,
    BUT one gets the error message that "there is a problem with your
    display setup" and a video default of 640X480, 16 colors.
    ***--> Any suggestions how to fix the video problem?

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Concerning Win2K, for some reason it now boots and runs OK with
    2Gbytes or 3Gbytes of RAM.
    All i did, was copy System.Ini, Win.Ini and Autoexec.Bat from the
    \WINNT directory to the root.
    Win2K reports the following (with 3Gbytes of RAM):
    Total Physical memory 3,145,268KB
    Available Physical memory 2,907,026KB
    And testing with PiFast, i can use 1,907,820KB but it crashes if i try
    2,097,026KB.
    That confirms that the total 3Gbytes of RAM is not available, and that
    the system report is correct.
    ***--> Any suggestions how to make it accept/allow the use of the full
    3Gbytes of RAM?
    Robert Baer, Dec 21, 2003
    #17
  18. Robert Baer

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    Re: RAM problem update

    Robert Baer <> wrote in news:3FE5081D.CDE4AD66
    @earthlink.net:

    > That confirms that the total 3Gbytes of RAM is not available, and that
    > the system report is correct.
    > ***--> Any suggestions how to make it accept/allow the use of the full
    > 3Gbytes of RAM?


    It already is, you are having a problem with either the memory itself being
    flakey or the programs you are running are running into their own problems
    with that much RAM. BTW, unless I'm mistaken a Win32 program can never
    allocate more than (I believe) 2 GB of RAM no matter how much RAM is
    present. The actual number may be 4 GB, but I think it may be 2 GB.

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
    DeMoN LaG, Dec 21, 2003
    #18
  19. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    Re: RAM problem update

    DeMoN LaG wrote:
    >
    > Robert Baer <> wrote in news:3FE5081D.CDE4AD66
    > @earthlink.net:
    >
    > > That confirms that the total 3Gbytes of RAM is not available, and that
    > > the system report is correct.
    > > ***--> Any suggestions how to make it accept/allow the use of the full
    > > 3Gbytes of RAM?

    >
    > It already is, you are having a problem with either the memory itself being
    > flakey or the programs you are running are running into their own problems
    > with that much RAM. BTW, unless I'm mistaken a Win32 program can never
    > allocate more than (I believe) 2 GB of RAM no matter how much RAM is
    > present. The actual number may be 4 GB, but I think it may be 2 GB.
    >
    > --
    > AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    > email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    > website: under construction
    > Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    > email/IM for rates/services


    On the second item, you are very likely correct concerning the 2Gbyte
    limit.
    I have heard elsewhere about that limit, but since M$ is so incorrect
    about other things, i want to push as hard as i can.
    On the first item, without running any programs, the Win2K system
    utilities report 3Gbytes total physical memory and that only 2Gbytes is
    availoable (which i think i mentioned).
    The programs i have tried are: PiFast by Pascal Sebah (a fairly robust
    program and distributed free), FILEMULT by me (written for DOS and using
    DOS4GW) - which can use all memory a GUI OS can allow it.
    They both confirm that only 2Gbytes are available for use (by system
    and program together).
    Each memory stick works by itself with no problems, and i have tried
    some combinations with two sticks (2Gbytes) and orders (A,B,C; B,A,C;
    C,B,A) withno observable differences.

    Any other suggestions (including "look-alike" OSes)?
    Robert Baer, Dec 22, 2003
    #19
  20. Robert Baer

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    Re: RAM problem update

    Robert Baer <> wrote in news:3FE7422D.83EABB64
    @earthlink.net:

    > On the first item, without running any programs, the Win2K system
    > utilities report 3Gbytes total physical memory and that only 2Gbytes is
    > availoable (which i think i mentioned).
    > The programs i have tried are: PiFast by Pascal Sebah (a fairly robust
    > program and distributed free), FILEMULT by me (written for DOS and using
    > DOS4GW) - which can use all memory a GUI OS can allow it.
    >


    Available doesn't mean "available for use by anything", it means "Currently
    unallocated." Does the total memory usage for the programs, the OS, and
    the file cache = ~3GB?

    As per the second, no program written with DOS4GW can allocate 2 GB of RAM,
    as far as I know, as there is no way for a program written for DOS (which
    is what DOS4GW is, a DOS extender) to allocate that much memory.

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
    DeMoN LaG, Dec 23, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Daz

    Mixing SDR Ram with DDR Ram?

    Daz, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    781
    Ralph Wade Phillips
    Sep 14, 2003
  2. Morph
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    596
    Morph
    Oct 9, 2004
  3. Allan Birnbaum Ditlevsen

    NEW RAM V OLD RAM

    Allan Birnbaum Ditlevsen, May 29, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    607
    Stuart
    Jun 7, 2004
  4. Morph
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    512
    Plato
    Oct 10, 2004
  5. ZF
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    2,058
Loading...

Share This Page