Just out of interest are you aware of the 512MB limit of RAM for WIN 98SE?
I am pasting some comments into this post from another Newsgroup that you
should be aware of.
Alan
"
Hugh Candlin wrote:
I don't know what book of tricks you have,
so I will simply ask,
have you tried throttling back the RAM?
....you're kidding me again Hugh right wnk
But for the sake of other readers not from this group I will say yes of
course I did.
My word tricks was just a matter of speech - procedures would be a better
word. My point was saying that I tried every procedure there is and I
researched and actually tried them all, simply because I wanted to succeed,
and had the products in hand to do so; however I'd quickly find out for
todays 'modern hardware' it's just not commonly possible to go 'beyond' 1
GB of RAM in 9x with any complete stability no matter what procedure you
use. With older setups with less demanding hardware I've heard of a few
were being able to run 1.5 GB but I have not seen it myself, but we all
know and have never heard anyone ever able to use 2GB in 9x.
You know Hugh as well as I that the well known common procedures of what
to do has been mentioned a thousand times in this group so I'm not saying
anything new, but for sake of others not from the MS 98 group or who don't
know...
For anyone wanting to use anything over 512 RAM then editing
the system.ini with:
[vcache]
MaxFileCache=512000
Using this prevents Windows from mapping an excessive large amount of
RAM for use as disk cache. If it's not there then it is possible for
windows to prompt with various false 'out of memory' errors because of the
large disk cache, or other memory related errors . However having that
setting still allows 9x to use the full amount of the installed RAM for a
users data files and their application programs, alongside windows
components. Currently myself having 1 GB installed I leave mine at 512 and
never once had any problems whatsoever with it, on the contrary for
large memory tasks having the use of 1GB has worked exceptionally well.
Other more detailed information about the errors from MS he
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;Q253912
&
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;Q184447
Sure there may be some people or websites that talk about using the full
2GB of ram for W95/98/ME since these were said to be originally intended
being able to support up to 2 GB of physical RAM, but the truth is the
hardware to test that capability was not readily available until well after
they were released and so 2GB of RAM was never properly field tested during
the development stages of these OS's. Since then though we now know with
the modern hardware now available it has been shown that there have been
problems in these OS's for 'some' people using more than 512 as explained
above with the various memory errors, instability, etc, and even moreso
happens if stretching that to using 1GB - and so to just set the
MaxFileCache to 512000 helps to stay clear of the known problems that can
arise - and it does work and yes I do personally use it. When I say
'modern hardware' in this post am referring to like high performance
VideoCards and todays performance MB's, etc, that their demanding
complexity use up even more memory addresses which more readily provides
the opportunity to produce the errors; these hardwares are really designed
for W2K or WXP and most of them now do not even support installing 9x.
However for anyone wanting to try more than 1 GB of RAM in 9x (which I do
not recommend for the majority) will need to at least also edit the
system.ini file to prevent windows from attempting to use more than 1 GB of
the total RAM which is necessary to help stay clear of those instability
problems (if even possible with todays hardware), and that would be again
in the system.ini to add this entry:
[386enh]
MaxPhysPage=40000
This setting has helped some use 1.5 GB, however I think the reality is if
anyone took a thousand different 'modern hardware'd 9x setups you won't see
many actually being able with any trusting stability run 1.5 GB - surly
congratulations if they do, but for 2 GB I doubt you will ever see even One
person be able to run it let alone even being able to have the 2 GB of RAM
plugged in 9x at all without all kinds of various errors even after setting
the MaxPhysPage to 40000. I know I've tried all the procedures and still
cannot achieve stability even with 1.5GB - not to mention the escalating
numerous problems with the 2 GB even inserted and it's just not worth it.
Why would I want 2GB plugged in even if I could anyway if I had to
MaxPhysPage=40000 which limits it to only 1GB anyway ..well yes of course
if one was to dual or triple boot like many of us do then it's convenient
to use 2GB in 2K/XP (if you need it) ..however, if you also want to boot to
W9x on the same MB but 9x won't handle it - then it's a little p.i.t.a but
will need to physical unplug the extra GB stick. Since I don't normally
really need 2GB I've just decided not even to bother to swap them in/out
anymore since 1GB is normally plenty - at least while I'm still
nostalgically keeping 9x in the boot loop anyway.
Websites to read more infos from:
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#64mb
http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm
Rick
"
"Occupant" wrote in message
...
Scandisk tells me I don't have enough memory to run when I try to check a
USB drive.
It works OK when I check the internal drives. Rebooting and running
Scandisk first
does not help.
The USB drive has 105GB used and 80GB free. Windows crashed while it was
writing to
the drive and now I get an error telling me the drive is full when I try
to add any
more files to it. I can read the existing files just fine.
I figure I need to run Scandisk. Is this right?
Any suggestions on how to proceed?
I'm running Win98SE 4.10 with 640MB RAM.
Thanks in advance for any assistance
Oscar