|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Dan
Actually the program is a free utility and monitors both RAM and the
swapfile. I have my swapfile set at 512 MB min/max. I reboot if the RAM
usage goes above 512 MB and there is any use of the swapfile. You are
correct, I should not have to do this. People have said that Win98 has a
"memory leak". I would call it a waterfall. Win98 does not return memory
that is no longer used in most cases. Since the hard drive speed is the
bottleneck in any computer system, I prefer not to use the swapfile until
all RAM is used (in Win98 this can be set).
When I checked my vcache settings, there were none. It appears that MS is
suggesting setting it at 512 MB which does not make much sense since this
would take all of my RAM. I put in min & max values at 25% of this.
Does anyone know the ideal vcache settings????
I replaced my 512 MB of older generic memory with 512 MB of ECC (error
checking) from Micron (through Crucial). I had talked with Intel and they
had said that generic memory works poorly with their faster processors (mine
is 800 MHz). Since then, system lock ups have been reduced to near 0.
If you want more information on the free memory utility, setting Win98 to
use all RAM before the swapfile is used, or info on Crucial let me know.
DDR memory must be supported by your motherboard. Crucial has a guide that
will tell you what type of memory your motherboard will support.
When I tried 1 GB of memory, I had multiple system lock ups due to the
limited memory addressing in the System Arena.
With Win2K, one cannot set the computer to use all available RAM before
using the swapfile. Win2K always uses the swapfile. Memory beyond a certain
amount is not used and is wasted (see MS's Knowledge Base).
neo
~ -----Original Message-----
~ From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
~ [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Daniel Martinez
~ Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 8:55 PM
~ To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
~ Subject: Re: Windows 98(1) More than 512 MB's Memory
~
~
~ Neo,
~ I don't know what you mean by "I use a simple memory monitor on
~ my desktop to
~ follow RAM usage. If it goes
~ over 512 MB I reboot." Are you saying you have 512 MB's
~ physical memory and
~ when your combined physical and swap file memory goes above 512 MB's you
~ reboot? You shouldn't have to do this.
~
~ I looked these web pages:
~ http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q253/9/12.asp
~ http://support.crucial.com/scripts/crucial.exe/solution?11=001213
~ -0007&130=000976726652&14=&2715=&15=&2716=&57=faq&58=&2900=&25=-1
~
~ Also the page Peter Gialames posted:
~ http://www.dewassoc.com/support/win98/win9x_512memory.htm
~
~ I haven't decided if I want to install more than 512 MB's. I
~ might take a
~ chance and see if the SYSTEM.INI command fixes the problem. I set the
~ MAXFILECACHE command about a year ago. If you have a lot of
~ memory, over 128
~ MB's on a Windows 9x O/S, and you don't set the MAXFILECACHE
~ command, you will
~ actually experience a performance slowdown. Windows slows down
~ because it must
~ search through your huge VCACHE to search for what it needs
~ before accessing
~ your HDD. I currently have 192 MB's and this is in my SYSTEM.INI.
~ [vcache]
~ maxfilecache=21000
~
~ 256 MB DDR Registered DIMM's are so cheap now, $45 (and free
~ shipping), it would
~ only cost me $90 to find out if my Windows 98 works with 1 GB.
~ It's amazing how
~ cheap they are. Did you ever enter the MAXFILECACHE setting in
~ your SYSTEM.INI
~ file? Theoretically, because Windows 9x is a 32-bit O/S, it
~ should be able to
~ handle 2^32 bytes or 4 GB's. Of course, there's always a
~ difference between
~ theory and practice. With Windows 2K, I know a lot of people
~ who have 768 MB's
~ to 1 GB and they report no problems.
~
~ Daniel.
~
~
~ neo wrote:
~
~ > Daniel
~ >
~ > I would suggest not adding more than 512 MB of memory. I tried
~ to do this
~ > about a year ago. In Win98 there is a dedicated area of memory
~ called the
~ > System Memory. It handles memory addressing, DOS programs,
~ graphics, etc.
~ > When it did not work I spoke with one of the senior engineers
~ at Micron who
~ > confirmed the problem. When Win98 was first programmed, no one
~ had any idea
~ > of the amount of RAM people would be using.
~ >
~ > I use a simple memory monitor on my desktop to follow RAM
~ usage. If it goes
~ > over 512 MB I reboot. Things that take a lot of memory are large file
~ > operations. I have a problem when either doing large file transfers,
~ > deletions, or certain system tests and explorations with
~ MetaStock. Win98
~ > reclaims very little memory once used so the only option I
~ have found that
~ > works is to monitor it and reboot when needed.
~ >
~ > Windows 98 allows one to set ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 so
~ that all RAM is
~ > used before the swapfile. Unfortunately with Win2000 one is
~ not able to give
~ > it this command so more memory is just a waste (see Microsoft knowledge
~ > base). I hope this is fixed with XP.
~ >
~ > neo
~ >
~ > ~ -----Original Message-----
~ > ~ From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
~ > ~ [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Daniel Martinez
~ > ~ Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 8:48 AM
~ > ~ To: Equis Metastock ListServ Post
~ > ~ Subject: Windows 98(1) More than 512 MB's Memory
~ > ~
~ > ~
~ > ~ Hello,
~ > ~ I'm thinking about installing more than 512 MB's of memory on my
~ > ~ motherboard. I want to install 1 GB of memory on my motherboard. I
~ > ~ will be initially using Windows 98(1). Is anyone here
~ using more than
~ > ~ 512 MB's of memory on their Windows 98(1) machine? If you have
~ > ~ already set your Disk Cache size, are you still having problems?
~ > ~
~ > ~ Daniel.
~
~
|