|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I found the problem. I had tried to upgrade from 512 MB to 1024 MB of
memory. It turns out that because of limitations in what MS calls the System
area, Win 95 to ME cannot handle more than 512 MB of RAM.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of j seed
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 12:08 AM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Any hardware help?
Neo,
Try this site and cruise around a bit. Its a slow load but the info. should
be helpful. Look in the call for help section. Also look for ways to speed
up your computer.
http://www.techtv.com/techtv/
J.
>From: "neo" <neo1@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: Any hardware help?
>Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:22:23 -0500
>
>I did check everything I could find on the MS site about Win 2000 and there
>is no place I could find about forcing all RAM to be used first. Reports
>are
>that Win 2000 divides memory usage between RAM and the swapfile.
>
>neo
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bill Irwin
>Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 7:28 PM
>To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: Any hardware help?
>
>
>Have you checked http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/default.asp and
>support.microsoft.com ? I would be surprised if W2K allows RAM to be
>sitting around unused while the swap file is churning away. It does use
>RAM
>for disk cache and I believe the paging file needs to be opened with a
>small
>amount of use in order for the rest of the memory management to function.
>I
>don't think you'd have a memory/page file related problem with 1 GB of RAM
>but, I haven't tested so I can't be certain. I'd check for articles on the
>subject before forming a final conclusion Neo.
>
>Bill
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of neo
> > Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 11:52 AM
> > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: Any hardware help?
> >
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > I have had to pull out 2 cards to get a stable system again.
> > This takes me
> > back to the 512 MB I had before. Since I really do not want
> > to go to NT yet
> > I will call Micron to return the chips and return to what I
> > had before. I
> > appreciate all the advice and will keep your email on file
> > for a future
> > upgrade to a Win NT product. My only concern about NT is that
> > there does not
> > seem to be a software switch to force NT to use all RAM
> > before the swapfile.
> > So unless MS changes this, NT will not do what I want either.
> >
> > Thanks again, neo
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bill Irwin
> > Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 12:52 AM
> > To: 'Mail List - MetaStock Submit (E-mail)'
> > Subject: RE: Any hardware help?
> >
> >
> > I have been the victim of Win98's limited abilities. When I
> > bought a new
> > computer and went from a P/133 64MB RAM 4GB disk to a P3/600
> > 128MB/133 RAM
> > 30GB disk, I found myself unable to run the same number of programs
> > concurrently on the new system without getting low on system
> > resources and
> > gradually coming to a screeching halt. It was so bad that I
> > installed a
> > freeware resource monitor that would warn me when my resource use had
> > reached 90% so I could close an app while I still could and
> > avoid a freeze.
> >
> > Although not perfect, my solution was to move to Windows
> > 2000. W2K is based
> > on the NT kernel (not Win 9x) and resources are limited by RAM, not a
> > Microsoft induced 128 KB resource pool. After installing W2K
> > fresh (not an
> > upgrade from W98) and getting W2K drivers for many devices, as well as
> > upgrading some programs that would not run in W2K, I'm
> > basically a happy
> > camper.
> >
> > I do get about 3 freezes a week, which I suspect is due to
> > either a disk
> > driver or my RAM, but I would gladly trade this for the
> > previous scenario of
> > having to nurse my PC along, running only a few apps, and
> > always teetering
> > on the edge of resource lockup.
> >
> > If you have the ability to remove a RAM chip and go to 512 MB
> > you can test
> > to see if your system becomes stable, although slightly
> > slower. Personally
> > I think you're a prime candidate for W2K because the amount
> > of hardware
> > you're asking W98 to support seems beyond it's capability.
> > After all, I
> > don't think you'll find very many home PCs with more than 512
> > MB of RAM. NT
> > servers, yes, but not PCs.
> >
> > If you decide to go the W2K route, do your homework first and run the
> > compatibility test to identify all the components on your PC
> > that are not
> > W2K compatible, and get the drivers you'll need before hand. I would
> > strongly recommend getting Power Quest's Partition Magic 6.0
> > and creating an
> > NTFS partition that you can experiment with, while you stay
> > live in your W98
> > partition. You should also create a FAT32 partition and put
> > in it any files
> > from your W98 environment that you want to be able to access
> > from either W98
> > or W2K. For me this included my Outlook .PST file, my
> > Netscape bookmarks,
> > my Quicken database and anything else I needed in either
> > environment to me
> > functional. If I'd tried to do this conversion without
> > Partition Magic, I
> > would've had a real serious mess on my hands. It contains
> > Boot Magic, which
> > presents a menu on boot that defaults to the OS you select and waits a
> > selectable number of seconds before going into that default OS.
> >
> > You may be successful in getting your W98 to cope with 1GB of
> > memory, but I
> > don't think Microsoft is going to be spending all that much
> > time trying to
> > resolve a problem that only affects those customers with more
> > than 512 MB
> > ... especially when they want to see you moving to W2K anyway.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: neo [mailto:neo1@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 4:49 AM
> > > To: Bill Irwin
> > > Subject: RE: Any hardware help?
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > My message to the board is below. I have gradually been
> > > tracking this down.
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > I just upgraded my system to 1024MB (1 GB). I now have
> > system freezes.
> > > Symantec states there is a problem with their memory tester
> > > in systems with
> > > more than 256MB. MS's Knowledge Base states there can be
> > problems with
> > > Windows 98 system when the RAM exceeds 512MB. Apparently
> > > there is a limited
> > > amount of memory that controls memory addressing and vcache
> > > in system.ini.
> > > One can lower maxdiskcache but this lowers disk performance.
> > >
> > > please help
> > >
> > > neo1@xxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
_________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
|