A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

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.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows ME » Hardware
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

memory problem RAM gets bare



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 26th 05, 12:54 AM
N. Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 25 May 2005 10:46:44 -0400, Jack E Martinelli wrote:

It is far better, for most users, just to let Windows manage the swapfile.
It is better still, to create a 2.1 GB, 4 KB cluster size, partition at the
head of a second, fast HD and allocate it to the swapfile. Disk access to
the OS files and the swapfile is now maximized for better performance.


Rats! I set up my swapfile as indicated, but I used a formula published by
some third party. It isn't as if 2.1 GB is so large, just that the formula
indicated that 512 MB would be more than I would need. I haven't really had
any trouble, but I hate to think of the work ahead in order to repartition
the silly thing.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
  #12  
Old May 26th 05, 06:40 AM
Noel Paton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Best is always to let Windows manage the size of the swapfile - but from
what you're saying now, it's not a memory problem, but a Resources problem
(they are not the same thing).

The only way to cure Resource problems is to reduce the number of running
applications.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Michael" wrote in message
...
Ok guys, i will give it a try: I release the max size of swap file to
Windows and will see if s.th. changes.

I report tomorrow.


"Noel Paton" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
I have a sneaky suspicion that Michael is running some kind of 'Memory
Manager/Optimiser'


If that's the case. Michael please uninstall it NOW!!!!! - your system

will
thank you for it!

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Blue screens usually include an error message or code. What are you
reinstalling following a blue screen? I've never heard of someone

having
to reinstall just because they blue screen. One thing you should do is
check your video and audio drivers and ensure they are up to date and

Win
Me compatible. Check for the latest versions on the manufacturers' web
sites.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Michael wrote:

I don't get any further error messages, that is the problem.

I would be happy if there were one, but probably it would be a blue
screen and then nobody can help and i have to reinstall anyway.







  #13  
Old May 26th 05, 03:15 PM
Jack E Martinelli
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If it is too tedious or difficult to repartition, simply continue to use C:
for the swapfile. But be sure to keep a lot of free space available there.
In addition to the swapfile and the System Restore archives, you will need
at least 15% free space to accomodate the defrag tool. I recommend not
least than 25%, if you can. This is another reason to keep the SR store low
in size. Remember that moving the swapfile to another partition on the
first HD will not increase performance, but may decrease it due to the
necessary head movement for the disk accesses.

While it is best to maintain a possible swapfile size of 2.1 GB, few users
will ever see anything near that. Use the System Monitor / Swapfile in Use
tool to monitor it. Booting to DOS once a month and deleting the swapfile
can help. It will be recreated on reboot at a much smaller size, depending
on the amount of installed memeory. If the Swapfile in Use constantly
exceeds ca. 10 MB, more installed memory is needed to increase performance.
When memory exceeds 512 MB, limit vcache, by opening system.ini, and adding
the lines
[VCache]
MaxFileCache=512000

Note that this will still mean that all of your memory is available to
applications, but the amount used as virtual cache memory will be limited,
to avoid running out of needed system memory by allocating it to unutilized
upper address space.
(Thank you, Mike M.)

FYI, the third-party info on which you relied for managing the swapfile size
might have been useful for Win95, and can be useful in Unix, but it has
always been inadvisable in Win98/ME, where memory management is very
different.
You want to be able to let the swapfile increase, as needed by the OS, to
its maximum size, to avoid unexpected system crashes.
It's no fun having to power down, loosing all of the last two hours work,
due to such a simple, fixable issue.
Esp., now that fast disk space is so inexpensive.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
In Memorium: Alex Nichol
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/nichol.mspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"N. Miller" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2005 10:46:44 -0400, Jack E Martinelli wrote:

It is far better, for most users, just to let Windows manage the

swapfile.
It is better still, to create a 2.1 GB, 4 KB cluster size, partition at

the
head of a second, fast HD and allocate it to the swapfile. Disk access

to
the OS files and the swapfile is now maximized for better performance.


Rats! I set up my swapfile as indicated, but I used a formula published by
some third party. It isn't as if 2.1 GB is so large, just that the formula
indicated that 512 MB would be more than I would need. I haven't really

had
any trouble, but I hate to think of the work ahead in order to repartition
the silly thing.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint



  #14  
Old May 26th 05, 06:48 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The max swap file size is set to 4 GB, Windows uses still 1 GB (which i
think is the formula: double-size RAM) and the problems still persist.

The swap file is not the problem


  #15  
Old May 26th 05, 07:07 PM
Rick T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael wrote:
The max swap file size is set to 4 GB, Windows uses still 1 GB (which i
think is the formula: double-size RAM) and the problems still persist.

The swap file is not the problem



Go back there and check "Let Windows handle..."

take a look at Start|Run| msconfig system.ini(tab) to make sure you
haven't got any entries for [vcache]

While you're in MSConfig, take a look at the Startup tab to see what's
loading at boot.



go through a couple generic fixes/tests...

Start|Run| dxdiag

Start|Run| scanreg/fix

ControlPanel|AddRemovePrograms|AddRemove|IE6| Fix (button)


When you think you're at the point where it's going to crash shortly,
open up TaskManager Ctrl-Alt-Del and write down (and post) the tasks
that are listed there.


Run your Anti-Virus/Spyware/Adware programs lately ?



Rick
  #16  
Old June 8th 05, 05:17 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What does that mean:

" this refers to two
small fixed size 64k stacks used by legacy applications and libraries) or
some other problem. "




  #17  
Old June 8th 05, 06:02 PM
Mike M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Exactly what it says. Two fixed size 64Kb stacks used to store pointers
used by legacy 16 bit applications. These stacks are at the heart of the
16bit operation of Win 9x operating systems and date from the introduction
of Windows 95.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Michael wrote:

What does that mean:

" this refers to two
small fixed size 64k stacks used by legacy applications and
libraries) or some other problem. "


  #18  
Old June 8th 05, 10:00 PM
N. Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:15:57 -0400, Jack E Martinelli wrote:

If it is too tedious or difficult to repartition, simply continue to use C:
for the swapfile.


Swapfile is on the first partition of the second HDD. Currently occupying
about a third of that HDD. I can't say that I have ever seen it grow to
more than three-fourths of 512MBytes. The issue I have with partitioning is
how to move the bulk of the HDD content so I can re-partition. I expect
that I would have to destroy the current .5GB-.5GB-39GB arrangement, an
replace it with, at the least, a 2.1GB-.5GB-37.4GB arrangement. Unless
there would be some reason to allow a larger partition for the TEMP files,
TIF, and browser caches; those are on the second .5GB partition on the
second HDD.

But be sure to keep a lot of free space available there.
In addition to the swapfile and the System Restore archives, you will need
at least 15% free space to accomodate the defrag tool. I recommend not
least than 25%, if you can.


My C: drive is currently running about 45% free space.

snip

FYI, the third-party info on which you relied for managing the swapfile size
might have been useful for Win95, and can be useful in Unix, but it has
always been inadvisable in Win98/ME, where memory management is very
different.


Although it came from a Windows ME book, I expect that the author probably
just transferred common Windows 95 knowledge to the Windows 98/ME
environment.

You want to be able to let the swapfile increase, as needed by the OS, to
its maximum size, to avoid unexpected system crashes.
It's no fun having to power down, loosing all of the last two hours work,
due to such a simple, fixable issue.
Esp., now that fast disk space is so inexpensive.


Well, I am not really going to worry too much at this time. I have some
other issues with this computer related to a PS meltdown. The PS fan died,
and the computer went super hot before I detected the problem. I did
replaced the power suppley, but... After running a few minutes I get that
"burnt electronics" odor. Coupled with some random, intermittent flakiness,
I expect that I have over cooked (not clocked; I run it stock!) some
critical components, and am on the last legs anyway. I am under orders to
research replacements for two 4 3/4 year old HP Pavilions this summer.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
  #19  
Old June 13th 05, 02:02 PM
Jack E Martinelli
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you, Norman.

1) The swapfile partition.
It appears this machine has run for many months, if not years, with only a
0.5 GB partition allocated for the swapfile.
Obviously, if the system is not crashing, the amount of installed memory is
adequate, along with the three-fourth used swapfile partition, to run the
usual programs. This poses no problem. However, if the swapfile is
suddenly required to increase to more than 0.5 GB, the system will almost
certainly crash. You and the typical users must evaluate the risk that this
poses. At the present time, the risk seems minimal. Furthermore, if user
patterns change, a quick and inexpensive solution is to move the swapfile
back to C:\, whre the current free space is 45%. As long as this free space
exceeds ca. 3 Gb, there should be no problem.
Of course, installing additional physical memory will decrease the amount of
swapfile needed, also. This is also inexpensive and quick to implement.

2) Obtain a free or inexpensive "burn-in" test program from a shareware
source and run the machine, at least overnight, to evaluate it. Relegate it
to non-essential, non-critical tasks.

3) FYI, a third-party partition management program can make your proposed
partition rearrangement problem a very simple task. In the present case,
however, this seems unnecessary.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
In Memorium: Alex Nichol
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/nichol.mspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"N. Miller" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:15:57 -0400, Jack E Martinelli wrote:

If it is too tedious or difficult to repartition, simply continue to use

C:
for the swapfile.


Swapfile is on the first partition of the second HDD. Currently occupying
about a third of that HDD. I can't say that I have ever seen it grow to
more than three-fourths of 512MBytes. The issue I have with partitioning

is
how to move the bulk of the HDD content so I can re-partition. I expect
that I would have to destroy the current .5GB-.5GB-39GB arrangement, an
replace it with, at the least, a 2.1GB-.5GB-37.4GB arrangement. Unless
there would be some reason to allow a larger partition for the TEMP files,
TIF, and browser caches; those are on the second .5GB partition on the
second HDD.

But be sure to keep a lot of free space available there.
In addition to the swapfile and the System Restore archives, you will

need
at least 15% free space to accomodate the defrag tool. I recommend not
least than 25%, if you can.


My C: drive is currently running about 45% free space.

snip

FYI, the third-party info on which you relied for managing the swapfile

size
might have been useful for Win95, and can be useful in Unix, but it has
always been inadvisable in Win98/ME, where memory management is very
different.


Although it came from a Windows ME book, I expect that the author probably
just transferred common Windows 95 knowledge to the Windows 98/ME
environment.

You want to be able to let the swapfile increase, as needed by the OS,

to
its maximum size, to avoid unexpected system crashes.
It's no fun having to power down, loosing all of the last two hours

work,
due to such a simple, fixable issue.
Esp., now that fast disk space is so inexpensive.


Well, I am not really going to worry too much at this time. I have some
other issues with this computer related to a PS meltdown. The PS fan died,
and the computer went super hot before I detected the problem. I did
replaced the power supply, but... After running a few minutes I get that
"burnt electronics" odor. Coupled with some random, intermittent

flakiness,
I expect that I have over cooked (not clocked; I run it stock!) some
critical components, and am on the last legs anyway. I am under orders to
research replacements for two 4 3/4 year old HP Pavilions this summer.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint



  #20  
Old June 13th 05, 02:04 PM
Jack E Martinelli
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

http://www.aumha.org/a/resource.htm

--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
In Memorium: Alex Nichol
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/nichol.mspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Exactly what it says. Two fixed size 64Kb stacks used to store pointers
used by legacy 16 bit applications. These stacks are at the heart of the
16bit operation of Win 9x operating systems and date from the introduction
of Windows 95.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Michael wrote:

What does that mean:

" this refers to two
small fixed size 64k stacks used by legacy applications and
libraries) or some other problem. "




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A couple of questions about RAM and virtual memory...please help! Theta Sigma General 30 February 24th 05 01:01 AM
Max performace settings (swap/cache) with 256/512 mb ram? 98 Guy Improving Performance 110 November 6th 04 01:49 AM
Max performace settings (swap/cache) with 256/512 mb ram? 98 Guy Setup & Installation 55 November 6th 04 01:49 AM
System memory problem -- Because of large hard drive? Steve Timko General 2 October 11th 04 07:42 PM
RAM Iqbal Software & Applications 22 July 24th 04 09:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.