If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
A machine that is running Widows 98 is often at least 4 or more years old,
so it is often not practical to have that much RAM. RAM modules for that machine will typically be smaller, and some machines have only limited capacity for RAM modules. Larger capacity modules of this type are often expensive, and adding more RAM may require discarding existing, perfectly good, modules. Because Windows 98 does such a good job of managing memory, and because the total system load may include a lot of memory that is accessed very infrequently, it is often not advisable to make that extra investment, because you won't get any noticeable system performance improvement from it. If the machine can cope with that much RAM, if you are using very large and very dynamic software, and if you don't mind spending the cash, then by all means go for it. If Windows really isn't using the swap file then whether you tell it to use it or not becomes irrelevant. However, disabling swapping will create problems if, for some unexpected reason, the system suddenly requires that extra space. And that reason can be as accidental as double-clicking a large number of files. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) "98 Guy" wrote in message ... Bert Kinney wrote: Hi 98 Guy, Ron Martell MS-MVP has an article that will answer most of you questions concerning memory management. http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#virtual Quoting from that article: "While the "total system load" is a realistic measure of total system memory requirements it is often not practicable or even advisable to have that much physical RAM installed in the computer" I don't know when that article was written, but clearly it IS practical these days to have a Win-98 machine with 256 or 512 mb of ram, so he is wrong about that. As for the "advisable" part, he gives no reason why having "that much" ram is not advised. The premise of the article is based on the idea that there can never be as much physical memory as the OS needs given the sum of the "total system load". This premise is clearly no longer valid. While the article claims that Windows 98 with 1 and 1.5 gb of ram is possible (with the appropriate settings), it does not explain the need to still have a swap file or virtual memory in that case. So - can you tell Win-98 not to use a swap file and not to create virtual memory? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Any software produced in recent years should already be properly aligned and
does not need to be aligned after installation. The effect of unaligned software is probably not detectable if there is ample RAM available. You can still use winalign (not walign) if you want - if there's no alignment to be done then nothing will happen. Note, however, that your anti-virus software may detect that the EXE has been modified, and the program itself might stop working in some case. Overall, it's not worth the bother. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) "98 Guy" wrote in message ... Buffalo wrote: 1) In your System.ini file put in MaxFileCache= 70% of physical ram under the [vcache] header. ie: 256MB x 70% = 179200 so MaxFileCache=179200 ie: 512MB x 70% = 469763 so MaxFileCache=469763 Vcache - this is a hard drive virtual cache - right? Which means data that is written to or read from the drive is cached transiently by Vcache. Tell me - is the single largest cache-able item the swap file? If you were limited to caching only 1 item - would the swap file be it? What is the purpose of the swap file anyways? Is the swap file the place where virtual memory is stored? If so, then if I have 512 mb of ram, why on earth do I STILL want virtual memory? Don't I have enough freeking REAL memory? And if I DON'T need or want virtual memory, then I don't have so much hammering of the Vcache because (presumably) there is NO swap file (?!). Again, back in the "old days" when I might have had a PC with 32 mb of ram (maybe 4 of that used by vcache?) and maybe 128 mb virtual memory (all of which is stored _AS_ the swap file - yes?) then, what - I theoretically have a PC with 32+128=160 mb of memory? So now if I have 512 mb of REAL memory, then why on earth do I still need virtual memory (and the swap file that goes with it) ??? Wouldn't win-98 run faster if it didn't have to manage virtual memory and the swap file??? The other items you mentioned are not even modified unless you run pure DOS games or pure DOS programs. Windows98 does not need an AutoExec.bat or Config.sys file to run Windows. But doesn't win-98 still load (or need) himem.sys even if you don't have an actual config.sys? What about emm386? My current emm386 line is: DEVICE=C:\WIN98\EMM386.exe NOEMS D=64 A=15 VERBOSE Are you saying that EMM386 is irrelavent to the operation of Windows 98, regardless of the command-line options used? PS: What about the use of WinAlign to "align" all executable code (microsoft and non-microsoft) that can be aligned safely as a way to increase performance? I don't hear too much about that. Is there a master list of third-party software that has been shown to be "align-able"? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:34:33 GMT There I was minding my own business
and then Ron Martell wrote : "Anorack Ted" wrote: Check out :- http://www.outertech.com/index.php?_charisma_page=index Cacheman is pure unadulterated crapware that is totally incapable of performing any beneficial function for any computer under any circumstances. Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada Ron Martini is pure un adult postware ;-) -- Free Windows/PC help, http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html remove obvious to reply Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :O) http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Shepİ wrote:
Click here, http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/easy.html HTH This sentence from this page is pure hokum: "Also if you have around 128 meg or more of RAM then enable the "Conservative Swap File"option in Cacheman to force windows to use all your RAM before swapping out." Windows will always repeat always use RAM before writing to the swap file. What that "conservative swap file usage" option does is to basically set Windows 98 memory management back to the less efficient Windows 95 memory management. Specifically what it does is to eliminate the pre-emptive writing of active memory content to the swap file. What Windows 98 does, during periods when the system is basically idle, is to scan the memory content and determine which items it would choose to move from RAM to the swap file should it be necessary to do so. It will then write those items to the swap file, but will also still leave them in RAM. Then if subsequently there is an actual need to move items to the swap file it can check those items that were pre-emptively written to the swap file and if they are still eligible to be moved they can be instantaneously dropped from RAM and their location remapped to the already existing content in the swap file. This can be a distinct performance advantage. And see my comments earlier in this thread regarding Cacheman. Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much." |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff Richards wrote:
A machine that is running Widows 98 is often at least 4 or more years old, so it is often not practical to have that much RAM. I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to 850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw (LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite), Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very fast, very quite machines. They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost). Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc). So based on everything I've read so far, a machine with 512 mb (or more) of real, honest to goodness RAM will never realistically need to use virtual memory so it will get turned off. What's a good setting for vcache? 64 mb? 128? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:33:46 GMT There I was minding my own business
and then Ron Martell wrote : Shepİ wrote: Click here, http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/easy.html HTH This sentence from this page is pure hokum: "Also if you have around 128 meg or more of RAM then enable the "Conservative Swap File"option in Cacheman to force windows to use all your RAM before swapping out." Windows will always repeat always use RAM before writing to the swap file. Grow up sunshine.There's over 78,000 documented bugs in the original win95 most of which have never been addressed in the later O/S by BG not including the deliberate,"None Compatibility Code" he wrote in.He's not,"Budda" you know. He ripped off an O/S/Made money,conned a lot of people.History will prove the truth. Sorry to burst yer bubble but it's not as important as you make yourself out to be. People buy Pcs from,"K-mart" and,"Toys-R-Us".They don't care about your corporate handed down knowledge about stolen code. You are redundant for all intents and purposes. Find a new hobby M8 -- Free Windows/PC help, http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html remove obvious to reply Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :O) http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"98 Guy" wrote in message ... Jeff Richards wrote: A machine that is running Widows 98 is often at least 4 or more years old, so it is often not practical to have that much RAM. I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to 850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw (LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite), Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very fast, very quite machines. They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost). Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc). So based on everything I've read so far, a machine with 512 mb (or more) of real, honest to goodness RAM will never realistically need to use virtual memory so it will get turned off. What's a good setting for vcache? 64 mb? 128? With your limited knowledge, you shouldn't be in charge of the project you are doong. Go ahead and shut off the 'Virtual Memory' function. Don't come back and cry, if you get 'burned' real bad. You were given many good sites to look at and learn from. If you want to argue without putting the time in to learn properly, that's your problem. LOL Buffalo |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Buffalo wrote:
With your limited knowledge, you shouldn't be in charge of the project you are doong. Everything I've read points to one thing: Real memory + Virtual memory = total available memory (TAM). None of the documents that have been posted so far have said that TAM ever needs to be more than a few hundred mb. If TAM = 512 mb, and if Real Memory = 512 mb, then Virtual Memory = 0. I'll run some Sandra tests with and without virtual memory turned on and see if it makes a difference. But I think many of you out there are just plain in the habbit of keeping virtual memory turned because "it's always been that way". If you've got 128mb ram, yea, ok, you probably need virtual memory turned on. But if you've got 256? 512? no way. Win-98 is hardly ever, perhaps never used as a server. So you can't tell me it's memory needs are significant once you've given it 256 mb of real RAM. Don't come back and cry, if you get 'burned' real bad. And just how would I get "burned real bad" if I run a pc with Virtual memory turned off? Don't load a heap of FUD on me. Give me information - not FUD. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know who "Ron Martini" is and considering you responded
to Ron Martell's response, I suggest you pay more attention to his article than you did to the spelling of his name. And then you may have a better understanding of memory management in MS Windows. -- Regards, Bert Kinney [MS-MVP DTS] http://dts-l.org/ How to Configure Outlook Express for Internet News: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=171164 "Shepİ" wrote On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:34:33 GMT There I was minding my own business and then Ron Martell wrote : "Anorack Ted" wrote: Check out :- http://www.outertech.com/index.php?_charisma_page=index Cacheman is pure unadulterated crapware that is totally incapable of performing any beneficial function for any computer under any circumstances. Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada Ron Martini is pure un adult postware ;-) -- Free Windows/PC help, http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html remove obvious to reply Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :O) http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
It might be worthwhile for him to download and install TaskInfo 2003 so he
can see the allocations for code and dat for each program runing in the system and the actual memory being used by those sections. "Buffalo" wrote in message news:kCYed.523561$8_6.170112@attbi_s04... "98 Guy" wrote in message ... Jeff Richards wrote: A machine that is running Widows 98 is often at least 4 or more years old, so it is often not practical to have that much RAM. I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to 850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw (LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite), Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very fast, very quite machines. They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost). Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc). So based on everything I've read so far, a machine with 512 mb (or more) of real, honest to goodness RAM will never realistically need to use virtual memory so it will get turned off. What's a good setting for vcache? 64 mb? 128? With your limited knowledge, you shouldn't be in charge of the project you are doong. Go ahead and shut off the 'Virtual Memory' function. Don't come back and cry, if you get 'burned' real bad. You were given many good sites to look at and learn from. If you want to argue without putting the time in to learn properly, that's your problem. LOL Buffalo |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Money 99 and Regional Settings problem | David | General | 0 | October 5th 04 02:41 PM |
Importing (some) settings from 98 to fresh install of 98SE | Michele Dondi | Setup & Installation | 11 | July 24th 04 08:42 PM |
ActiveX settings | Wade Koehn | Monitors & Displays | 0 | July 21st 04 04:54 PM |
lan settings | joe | Networking | 1 | June 25th 04 10:50 AM |
Put Documents and Settings on D partition? | Clark G | General | 1 | June 11th 04 06:01 AM |