Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/8/2002 7:20:20 AM EDT
I upgraded my OR840 board again and while the BIOS shows the correct amount of memory installed, Windows 98SE shows 2 MB less than what I actually have installed. When I had 256 MB, both the BIOS and Windows showed 256 MB. When I had 768 MB, both the BIOS and Windows showed 768 MB. Now I have 1024 MB installed, and while the BIOS shows 1024 MB, Windows shows 1022 MB. What's the deal? Should I care?
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 7:25:18 AM EDT
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Microsoft. Hint: Get Linux. It isn't as convient, but then it doesn't have as many bugs as Microsoft does.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 7:27:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2002 7:34:37 AM EDT by M4A3]
Originally Posted By mattja: Now I have 1024 MB installed
View Quote
For what purpose? I don't know the exacts, but I don't think Win98 can properly utilize anything over 128 or maybe 256.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 7:33:24 AM EDT
Who cares? By the way... Windows 98 was not designed for that amount of memory, and will not be able to utilize it as efficiently as Windows NT/2000/XP After 256mb in Windows 98, I can hardly tell the difference in any amount of memory beyond that, impacting performance. Even your large graphics programs wont run as well as they will on 2k/XP with that much ram.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 7:34:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By M4A3: I don't know the exacts, but I doubt Win98 can properly utilize anything over 128 or maybe 256.
View Quote
Actually, Per Microsoft, Win98 can address up to 2GB. Changes will be required to VCache to effectively utilize anything over 512M. -
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 7:37:21 AM EDT
I had Linux installed on my server, dual-booted with Windows 2000 Adv. Server but removed it because I was running out of disk space. I will probably re-install in again pretty soon. M4A3, I'm a software engineer and my development tools are memory hogs. With the additional memory, the compiler is able to keep the symbol table in memory, which speeds up compile time from say 10 minutes, to 2 minutes. That's a major gain in performance. After many years of programming, the one thing I HATE more than anything is waiting around for the compiler to do its thing. With the additional memory, much less of my time is wasted. Furthermore, the additional memory allows me run my compiler, database manager, UML design tool, and others simultaneously, which for me is a big help.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 7:37:40 AM EDT
I found this; I don't know if it's helpful to you or not. [url]http://www.pcforrest.freeserve.co.uk/vcache.htm#Problems With Large Amounts Of RAM[/url]
Problems With Large Amounts Of RAM Due to the recent fall in RAM prices recently, issues that were not of major concern are now becoming more and more apparent. Microsoft themselves obviously couldn't test Windows using the full 2GB it was originally designed to handle, but they have had to revise a number of articles dealing with high-RAM systems. If you have more than 512MB of RAM, allowing VCACHE to increase above 512MB can create memory-handling problems. A VCACHE maximum of less than 524,288 KB is highly recommended. Without this limit, VCACHE will eventually reach its default maximum of 800MB, which effectively consumes all the system arena addresses leaving no virtual memory for anything else. In addition, because an AGP video card's aperture (set in the BIOS) is mapped to the system arena addresses, it will consume memory over and above VCACHE. Again, virtual memory addresses for running programs will be reduced as a result. Systems with more than 1.5GB of RAM may hang or continually reboot. Microsoft recommends limiting RAM to 1GB by adding a MaxPhysPage=40000 setting in SYSTEM.INI's [386enh] section (or by physically removing additional RAM over 1GB). Note that not all systems will be affected. Microsoft are saying these problems may exist. However, as a result of the instability issues they do not recommend installing more than 1GB.
View Quote
As far as Linux goes, Bostonterrier, it has its own issues. I had a devil of a time getting my Linux system to recognize more than 64MB of RAM.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 7:39:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By XM777:
Originally Posted By M4A3: I don't know the exacts, but I doubt Win98 can properly utilize anything over 128 or maybe 256.
View Quote
Actually, Per Microsoft, Win98 can address up to 2GB. Changes will be required to VCache to effectively utilize anything over 512M. -
View Quote
Are you referring to the virtual disk cache? What are the details?
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 7:49:58 AM EDT
The "missing" memory could be a result of the mapping of video card memory into the linear address space. I know Windows used to do that, and it still might. If it does, it's likely that it does it somewhere in the first GB of addressable space, which would explain what you're seeing. I wouldn't worry about it; with the system you have, Windows is what's holding your performance back, not your memory; no matter how much memory you throw at it, Windows still sucks.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 7:59:35 AM EDT
BostonTeaParty, thanks for the link. There's some useful information there.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 8:36:11 AM EDT
I had a devil of a time getting my Linux system to recognize more than 64MB of RAM.
View Quote
That's not a problem with Linux. It's either a problem with the BIOS or the cache. Some BIOS'es won't report more than 64Mbytes of RAM. Also, the cache on a few Intel chipsets doesn't support more than 64Mbytes of RAM. I've got a couple motherboards with that problem. Intel often shoots themselves in the foot when they cut corners. To workaround the BIOS problem, you can tell Linux how much RAM you have. If you use LILO, you can hit the tab key at the prompt then type "linux mem=256M". If you get Linux working and want to know how to fix it so that you don't have to type-in that parameter, then just ask, and I can talk you through it.z
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 9:59:17 AM EDT
No, it was a Linux problem, in that sense that Linux is so dang user-unfriendly it is hard to figure stuff out. That's why Linux will never be a mainstream consumer OS. I got it to work eventually, just not the way the readme file that came with my Mandrake 7.0 CD said to do it. It was a major pain in the butt. Everything with Linux was that way (and I use Solaris every day at work, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with Unix). Eventually I gave it up and went back to an OS that can actually get stuff done. Linux is a great server OS, or so I've heard, but it makes a crappy general-purpose desktop OS unless you want to actually spend all your time working [b]on[/b] the OS.
Top Top