RAM question, long and boring as ususal.

thanatoid wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I have had that ever since I moved up to 1GB from 246MB. I
have the swap file set to 200MB min/max and BION, it is NEVER
used.
Setting a min/max the same is expounded upon by some but it can cause
problems.
If you run into any, let Windows98 manage the swap file.
Since you are using the ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1 setting, it probably
will make no difference, so I would sugges that you let Win98 handle the
swap file and forget about it.
Hopefully it will all work out well for you.
Buffalo

but they said it was coming and they would exchange it, no
paperwork, no questions asked. I was incredulous and
disappointed at being deprived of a chance to break the stick in
half and throw it in their faces along with a few choice words.

:-D

week. Lo and behold, they DID come, and he gave me one today. No
paperwork, no questions asked - I was speechless.

hehe

Anyway, the question. (As usual, I apologize for being so wordy.
I can't help it. I have to give all the info.)

to say lots of things in few words is an art form
it's not easy

stick - AND it makes MORE than 1 GB total, so WHY don't the TWO
*1GB* sticks (one 266 and one 400) work together? (see below)

is it just windows that don't likes them together, or the computer?
If it is computer then bios should probably give an error
or say you have 0 MB ram or only 1GB I believe...

have you tested your computer with 2GB in it with a memory testing
program (like the one that is included on the ubuntu live-cd that
you can select at the menu in the beginning before going graphical) ?

somewhere. I read a few other things, and SOME say 1 GB is all
98SE can handle, some say it can handle up to 4GB. It is

Yeah to use 4GB or more memory I think you need that commercial patch
that someone made. (but since your motherboard can handle max 2GB
I guess you have to get another computer to play with that thing)

A normal window program can't handle more than 2GB anyway
so if you don't have two huge programs running at the same
time (or a very memory hungry/wasting operatingsystem) then
more than 2GB is not very usefull other than as disk-cache.

teebo wrote:
but they said it was coming and they would exchange it, no
paperwork, no questions asked. I was incredulous and
disappointed at being deprived of a chance to break the stick in
half and throw it in their faces along with a few choice words.

:-D

week. Lo and behold, they DID come, and he gave me one today. No
paperwork, no questions asked - I was speechless.

hehe

Anyway, the question. (As usual, I apologize for being so wordy.
I can't help it. I have to give all the info.)

to say lots of things in few words is an art form
it's not easy

stick - AND it makes MORE than 1 GB total, so WHY don't the TWO
*1GB* sticks (one 266 and one 400) work together? (see below)

is it just windows that don't likes them together, or the computer?
If it is computer then bios should probably give an error
or say you have 0 MB ram or only 1GB I believe...

Please read the other replies and see what is really happening.

have you tested your computer with 2GB in it with a memory testing
program (like the one that is included on the ubuntu live-cd that
you can select at the menu in the beginning before going graphical) ?

I guess you don't know about the memory limits in Win98.


somewhere. I read a few other things, and SOME say 1 GB is all
98SE can handle, some say it can handle up to 4GB. It is

Yeah to use 4GB or more memory I think you need that commercial patch
that someone made. (but since your motherboard can handle max 2GB
I guess you have to get another computer to play with that thing)

Why do you post when you are not familar with Win98 memory limits?

A normal window program can't handle more than 2GB anyway
so if you don't have two huge programs running at the same
time (or a very memory hungry/wasting operatingsystem) then
more than 2GB is not very usefull other than as disk-cache.

Just keep babbling on.

§ñühw¤£f wrote in
:

In message ,
thanatoid wrote:
SNIP

IIRC theres a limit to how much BeOS can handle memory
wise.Up to a gig? shrugs

I'll find out, maybe, someday, perhaps.

This PIII has 390MB of memory and its streaming music, has
a couple of web browsers open, and I'm reading newsfroups
and its hardly taxed at *all*. Jus Sayin[tm]

Hey, you may recall that for about 10 years I did everything on
a 166MHz P1 MMX with 64 (later 98) MB RAM, and could everything
except convert music formats - which is why I bought this 2GHz
machine, and then 512 kbps was cheaper than 2 phone lines and
dial up, so...


--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

"Buffalo" wrote in
:



thanatoid wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I have had that ever since I moved up to 1GB from
246MB. I have the swap file set to 200MB min/max and BION,
it is NEVER used.
Setting a min/max the same is expounded upon by some but it
can cause problems.

Everybody says that about XP - and it may well be best to let
/XP/ manage memory - but I don't remember seeing anyone say that
about 9x. It has worked great for me for about 14 years :-]

I used to set it to 2.5 times the amount of RAM when I only had
64-95 MB of RAM, but now, since the swap file it is never used,
I have set it at 200MB (just in case) since getting the 1GB of
RAM.

If you run into any, let Windows98 manage the swap file.
Since you are using the ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1
setting, it probably will make no difference, so I would
sugges that you let Win98 handle the swap file and forget
about it. Hopefully it will all work out well for you.

Thanks again - everything seems fine. I still have to try the
1.5 GB limit setting, but it can wait. I've been on the net for
a few hours and I have 750 MB free.


--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

"J¡m ßéâñ" wrote in
:

You were right .... WAY TOO WORDY! I lost interest about
2/3 of the way thru. Hopefully somebody else can help you
out.

I know... That's why I warn people...

But WHY didn't you snip all my crap then? ;-)


--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

teebo wrote in newsp.uvsws8d6br8ivg@300pl:

SNIP

Anyway, the question. (As usual, I apologize for being so
wordy. I can't help it. I have to give all the info.)

to say lots of things in few words is an art form
it's not easy

For me it is damn near impossible. I have had people practically
fall asleep or finally explode in violent bursts of passion at
being bored of their skulls.

stick - AND it makes MORE than 1 GB total, so WHY don't
the TWO *1GB* sticks (one 266 and one 400) work together?
(see below)

is it just windows that don't likes them together, or the
computer? If it is computer then bios should probably give
an error or say you have 0 MB ram or only 1GB I believe...

As many places say WILL happen, it says "insufficient memory to
start Windows" when I put in 2GB's. Nothing like MS logic, huh?

have you tested your computer with 2GB in it with a memory
testing program (like the one that is included on the
ubuntu live-cd that you can select at the menu in the
beginning before going graphical) ?

Of course. A couple from Hiren's and the MS one which appears
surprisingly good.

somewhere. I read a few other things, and SOME say 1 GB is
all 98SE can handle, some say it can handle up to 4GB. It
is

Yeah to use 4GB or more memory I think you need that
commercial patch that someone made. (but since your
motherboard can handle max 2GB I guess you have to get
another computer to play with that thing)

I can not for the life of me imagine ever needing 4 GB, I don't
even need 2MB, ****, I don't even need 1 GB! I have been on the
net for a few hours and I have 750 MB free.

A normal window program can't handle more than 2GB anyway

Didn't know that. You mean ALL Windows programs, even the latest
and bloatest?

so if you don't have two huge programs running at the same
time (or a very memory hungry/wasting operatingsystem) then
more than 2GB is not very usefull other than as disk-cache.





--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

For me it is damn near impossible. I have had people practically
fall asleep or finally explode in violent bursts of passion at
being bored of their skulls.

I like your writings though, they makes me smile :-)
and when it comes to newsposts, readers total time spent
on reading long text is pretty equal to amount time required
to make it shorter so it doesn't really mather here.
On the other hand, if you are writing a book, then you should
try to make it as short as possible since there are many
more readers and thereby the sum of time much larger.
School book writers should practice writing Haiku or something

As many places say WILL happen, it says "insufficient memory to
start Windows" when I put in 2GB's. Nothing like MS logic, huh?

yup. logic. hehe. but it is really just a dump-all-errors-
related-to-memory-here error. You know, they whould have
wasted precious bits and bytes having to keep lots of different
error messages in Windows kernel all the time, and since normal
people (at the time) had so little - probably 64MB or less -
there are none to waste. And who needs more than 640 KB anyway?
(Lets waste all the memory on Internet Exploder instead that
I've read takes 90MB ram, compared to rest of Windows 24MB)

It should have said "because of a small bug in select best amount
of cache -routine we have used up all adresses in the adress space
available for that and other operating system things, so now there
is insufficient memory address available for those other things
and hence windows can't start. in safe mode too I believe."
Or something like that, correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course. A couple from Hiren's and the MS one which appears
surprisingly good.

aha, haven't tried those, I have only run memtest86+
are the other ones better?

I can not for the life of me imagine ever needing 4 GB, I don't
even need 2MB, ****, I don't even need 1 GB! I have been on the
net for a few hours and I have 750 MB free.

you need to open more tabs in firefox ;-)
lots of tabs with youtubes and stuff running in them

(an alternative is to run 3dsMax or Maya of course,
they munches up lots of ram.)

A normal window program can't handle more than 2GB anyway
Didn't know that. You mean ALL Windows programs, even the latest
and bloatest?

exactly. what I have read about 32bit Windows memory system
only half of the possible address space of 4GB is available to
the application (each program have their own 0 to 2GB adresses).
There is a special switch /3G that can be used in boot.ini on
windows XP and other NT-based os'es (not in win9x) that limits
the kernel components to using only 1GB instead of 2GB adress space.
If it is enabled, then specially written programs compiled
with /LARGEADDRESSAWARE can use up to 3GB. It is mainly databases
like Oracle and such I believe, no normal applications.

if your application needs more, then 64bit is only way to go
(together with all the problems you get with it), not even
PAE will help you with those programs.

In message , thanatoid wrote:
§ñühw¤£f wrote in
:

In message ,
thanatoid wrote:
SNIP

IIRC theres a limit to how much BeOS can handle memory
wise.Up to a gig? shrugs

I'll find out, maybe, someday, perhaps.

Put it on the 166mhz PI

This PIII has 390MB of memory and its streaming music, has
a couple of web browsers open, and I'm reading newsfroups
and its hardly taxed at *all*. Jus Sayin[tm]

Hey, you may recall that for about 10 years I did everything on
a 166MHz P1 MMX with 64 (later 98) MB RAM, and could everything
except convert music formats - which is why I bought this 2GHz
machine, and then 512 kbps was cheaper than 2 phone lines and
dial up, so...

I use a pII to scan & do photoshopping tasks: 266mhz 64MB ram.
If it aint broke; dont fix it.


--
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people
by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and
sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically
have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison

teebo wrote in newsp.uvtr2kqebr8ivg@300pl:

SNIP

Of course. A couple from Hiren's and the MS one which
appears surprisingly good.

aha, haven't tried those, I have only run memtest86+
are the other ones better?

I don't know if 'better' is the right word. They do all the
correct tests the names of which I can't recall, MATS etc I
believe. I could never get memtest to work, for some reason, so
I DL'd the MS one which as I said is surprisingly good in that
it has a very simple interface and does 6 types of the right
tests and will run them until you stop it, like overnight. (But
so will all of them I believe.) I just run a couple of passes
and that's good enough for me. If I ever have problems, I might
run an overnight.

I had a bad stick once and it had major errors show in the MS
test before it even did half the tests. The weird thing is that
it worked - some slightly buggy behavior, but it did work. That
was BEFORE I tested it. Then I threw it out.

I can not for the life of me imagine ever needing 4 GB, I
don't even need 2MB, ****, I don't even need 1 GB! I have
been on the net for a few hours and I have 750 MB free.

you need to open more tabs in firefox ;-)
lots of tabs with youtubes and stuff running in them

Not much of a YT fan. I prefer stills to movies. And I always
open new windows, never tabs. I hate tabs. I don't know why. I
was quite upset when my favorite browser, OffByOne, introduced
tabs. But it's still the best for simplicity, safety and speed.
Of course, many "newfangled" sites show a blank window and when
you look at the code it says "javascript" or "flash". Yawn. Of
course, if it's worth it, I go to another browser then.

(an alternative is to run 3dsMax or Maya of course,
they munches up lots of ram.)

I have been 'thinking' of doing something creative in music or
graphics for 15 years. I imagine I will be 'thinking' about it
for the rest of my life. Sigh.

A normal window program can't handle more than 2GB anyway
Didn't know that. You mean ALL Windows programs, even the
latest and bloatest?

exactly. what I have read about 32bit Windows memory system
only half of the possible address space of 4GB is available
to the application (each program have their own 0 to 2GB
adresses). There is a special switch /3G that can be used
in boot.ini on windows XP and other NT-based os'es (not in
win9x) that limits the kernel components to using only 1GB
instead of 2GB adress space. If it is enabled, then
specially written programs compiled with /LARGEADDRESSAWARE
can use up to 3GB. It is mainly databases like Oracle and
such I believe, no normal applications.

Oh well, one thing I don't have to worry about is ever having to
use Oracle and such.

Cheers.


--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?