Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 512MB on Win98

  1. #1
    ileacy
    Guest

    512MB on Win98

    Have/Had a really strange problem. I am running WIN98SE as one of my operating systems on a P3 1GHz, 512 MB, ATI Radeon 64 VIVOsystem.

    I was getting a variety of strange errors. The most common error was "Invalid Page Fault" errors in a variety of programs. Thought it might be memory related so I swapped the two 256MB PC133 Dimms. Problems persisted.

    Finally tried editing system.ini to add "MaxPhysPage=10000" to [386Enh]. This limits the physical memory that W9x uses to 256MB.

    Problems went away.

    I have not been seeing similar problems with W2K on the same system.

    Has anyone successfully used Win98 on a 512MB Ram system?

  2. #2
    Plutonium Lounger Leif's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    14,010
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: 512MB on Win98

    Ian - I did a quick search and probably only came up with what you found: a few discussion group threads with users trying to get to the bottom of the same thing. No joy, I'm afraid, but I did come across references to these two KB's:
    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q253/9/12.asp>Q253912</A> "Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed
    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q181/8/62.asp>Q181862</A> Specifying Amount of RAM Available to Windows Using MaxPhysPage

  3. #3
    ileacy
    Guest

    Re: 512MB on Win98

    Tx Lief, and yes, I had been there already.

    Q181862 re MaxPhysPage was the most useful. In particular, it pointed out that the value was in Hex not Decimal. Another KB article implied decimal so it did not do what I wanted. <img src=/S/laugh.gif border=0 alt=laugh width=15 height=15>

    The Q253912 article did suggest that memory in excess of 512MB was possible with limitations. It also implied that the major possible conflict was with Vcache AND video cards. I suspect the problem is related to using the ATI Radeon 64, but, found nothing to date in the ATI KB.

    This is more of an annoyance than a serious problem for me. 256MB is plenty for W98 and the test system is running smoothly with W2K, WXP, and now Linux 2.4 (RedHat 7.1 for now and Mandrake 8 next).

    Based on the other OS results I have eliminated hardware from my cause of problems.

  4. #4
    Uranium Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,089
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: 512MB on Win98

    Thought I'd chime in with my personal experiences. I have 98SE running with 512MB RAM and have had no problems. It did choke some when I started fiddling with some system settings to see just how much I could tweak it before I broke it....and came away with the reality that the vcache is useless beyond a certain point. Among other things that is.

    Now, when I installed a large hard drive (60GB) on that machine, 98 had some issues and decided to pout. It still is. But I let it slide because it's not my daily driver.

    I think 9x develops problems at the upper end of the hardware envelope but it's not RAM related - I'd be inclined to think the video drivers (you have a very modern card) may be an issue.
    -Mark

  5. #5
    ileacy
    Guest

    Re: 512MB on Win98

    Tx Wylly:

    Strangest tweaking result I got was when I disabled virtual memory trying to run in just the 512MB Ram. Started getting Floating Point exceptions in Asus PC Probe.

    Turns out divide by zero exceptions are not masked properly with VM disabled.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •