ME Memory problems?

Thanks Mo for your comments.

Things seem to be getting worse as when I clicked on "Connect to the
Internet" just now, I was blue screened with a "Windows Protection Error" and
had to reboot. When I connected eventually I reached exactly this point and
the system froze again but no blue screen or error so I'm pretty fed up with
the whole thing now.

Anyway, the experts seems to have given up on me and are just chatting
amongst themselves now so I shall plod on on my own. Hopefully i will have a
"eureka" moment or maybe I will kick the PC so hard it wont matter anymore!

Regards

keithb

"mogramjo" wrote:

Perhaps this scenario can help someone. For quite some time, I've had ME
with the Swapfile disabled...the system.ini entries for Vcache are
'disabled' with a semicolons in front and I have 512MB RAM. The problem with
utilities that free up RAM is they most often (always?) shove it into the
Swapfile, which becomes an unwieldy bunch of blobs on the HD. It's deletable
via a minimal boot-up but I don't having to do that. I do use a free-up RAM
utility called 'MaxMem' because running certain types of 'scans' seem to
gobble memory and this utility lets me clear RAM when I need it.
http://www.analogx.com/contents/down...tem/maxmem.htm I don't think one
can 'get away with' this having less than 512MB RAM. If this pertains to the
questions at hand, good. Happy Lunar New Year!!! 'mo'

"ernie" wrote in message
...
It is possibly a fine point but the reason given for such a limit was to
leave
room for active code in RAM to avoid a crash. It is hard to see how that
could
be a bad idea in any operating system unless to do so would interfere with
the
native.

I doubt the resources will be devoted to the testing required.
Thank you,
ern.

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the suggestion.

It might be a "no brainer" for those running Win 98 (not that I feel it
is
since it is IMO rarely necessary, for example I never felt the need to
constrain vcache when running Win98 or 98SE) but I've never seen such a
setting postulated to be appropriate for those running Win Me.

Win Me's memory management differs substantially from that in Win 98 and
I
feel that someone would need to carry out some extensive testing to
establish the need for such settings and personally I see little point
since with the odd exception such as Keith's post in this thread, I've
rarely seen anyone posting with virtual memory problems that weren't
tracked down to things such as hardware or limiting the size of the
swapfile (or even trying to run without one at all).
--
Mike Maltby



ernie wrote:

Mike,
There was much discussion of this setting in the Windows 98
performance group and it was advanced as a "no brainer" that the
Vcache had to be limited to around 70% of installed RAM to avoid VMM
problems.
It may be that Win ME is better without any setting in System.ini,
the OP's setting is too great to comply anyway, but I would be
interested to hear your comment on that if you can drag yourself away
from the figure work.

This is not a recommended configuration but you may get away with it for
quite a time or crash tomorrow.
Good luck,
ern.

mogramjo wrote in message
news:x%XCf.24052$jR.9077@fed1read01...
Perhaps this scenario can help someone. For quite some time, I've had ME
with the Swapfile disabled...the system.ini entries for Vcache are
'disabled' with a semicolons in front and I have 512MB RAM. The problem
with
utilities that free up RAM is they most often (always?) shove it into the
Swapfile, which becomes an unwieldy bunch of blobs on the HD. It's
deletable
via a minimal boot-up but I don't having to do that. I do use a free-up
RAM
utility called 'MaxMem' because running certain types of 'scans' seem to
gobble memory and this utility lets me clear RAM when I need it.
http://www.analogx.com/contents/down...tem/maxmem.htm I don't think
one
can 'get away with' this having less than 512MB RAM. If this pertains to
the
questions at hand, good. Happy Lunar New Year!!! 'mo'

"ernie" wrote in message
...
It is possibly a fine point but the reason given for such a limit was to
leave
room for active code in RAM to avoid a crash. It is hard to see how that
could
be a bad idea in any operating system unless to do so would interfere
with
the
native.

I doubt the resources will be devoted to the testing required.
Thank you,
ern.

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the suggestion.

It might be a "no brainer" for those running Win 98 (not that I feel
it
is
since it is IMO rarely necessary, for example I never felt the need to
constrain vcache when running Win98 or 98SE) but I've never seen such
a
setting postulated to be appropriate for those running Win Me.

Win Me's memory management differs substantially from that in Win 98
and
I
feel that someone would need to carry out some extensive testing to
establish the need for such settings and personally I see little point
since with the odd exception such as Keith's post in this thread, I've
rarely seen anyone posting with virtual memory problems that weren't
tracked down to things such as hardware or limiting the size of the
swapfile (or even trying to run without one at all).
--
Mike Maltby



ernie wrote:

Mike,
There was much discussion of this setting in the Windows 98
performance group and it was advanced as a "no brainer" that the
Vcache had to be limited to around 70% of installed RAM to avoid VMM
problems.
It may be that Win ME is better without any setting in System.ini,
the OP's setting is too great to comply anyway, but I would be
interested to hear your comment on that if you can drag yourself
away
from the figure work.

It's ok erinie, I'm not having crashes, blue screens or any problems, but
thanks. 'mo'

"ernie" wrote in message
...
This is not a recommended configuration but you may get away with it for
quite a time or crash tomorrow.
Good luck,
ern.

mogramjo wrote in message
news:x%XCf.24052$jR.9077@fed1read01...
Perhaps this scenario can help someone. For quite some time, I've had ME
with the Swapfile disabled...the system.ini entries for Vcache are
'disabled' with a semicolons in front and I have 512MB RAM. The problem
with
utilities that free up RAM is they most often (always?) shove it into
the
Swapfile, which becomes an unwieldy bunch of blobs on the HD. It's
deletable
via a minimal boot-up but I don't having to do that. I do use a free-up
RAM
utility called 'MaxMem' because running certain types of 'scans' seem to
gobble memory and this utility lets me clear RAM when I need it.
http://www.analogx.com/contents/down...tem/maxmem.htm I don't think
one
can 'get away with' this having less than 512MB RAM. If this pertains to
the
questions at hand, good. Happy Lunar New Year!!! 'mo'

"ernie" wrote in message
...
It is possibly a fine point but the reason given for such a limit was
to
leave
room for active code in RAM to avoid a crash. It is hard to see how
that
could
be a bad idea in any operating system unless to do so would interfere
with
the
native.

I doubt the resources will be devoted to the testing required.
Thank you,
ern.

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the suggestion.

It might be a "no brainer" for those running Win 98 (not that I feel
it
is
since it is IMO rarely necessary, for example I never felt the need
to
constrain vcache when running Win98 or 98SE) but I've never seen
such
a
setting postulated to be appropriate for those running Win Me.

Win Me's memory management differs substantially from that in Win 98
and
I
feel that someone would need to carry out some extensive testing to
establish the need for such settings and personally I see little
point
since with the odd exception such as Keith's post in this thread,
I've
rarely seen anyone posting with virtual memory problems that weren't
tracked down to things such as hardware or limiting the size of the
swapfile (or even trying to run without one at all).
--
Mike Maltby



ernie wrote:

Mike,
There was much discussion of this setting in the Windows 98
performance group and it was advanced as a "no brainer" that the
Vcache had to be limited to around 70% of installed RAM to avoid
VMM
problems.
It may be that Win ME is better without any setting in System.ini,
the OP's setting is too great to comply anyway, but I would be
interested to hear your comment on that if you can drag yourself
away
from the figure work.