Is Memory Restrictive.......

......A friend recently told me that Win98 has a problem with more than 512mb.
I have not had this problem yet as I am 'Financially Challenged' and cannot afford more than what I have (192mb)

Could someone shed some light on this - Does Win98se have a problem with more than 512mb RAM ?????

 

There are different opinions on that subject. Some people think that Windows 98 cannot effectively utilize anything over 256 MB of Ram. You may even see a slowdown if you install more Ram than your computer or Windows can handle.
I personally think 256 MB is a good limit for 98.
If you are running some very intense programs for Example some Adobe products you may benefit from more than that.

 

There's not a straight-forward answer. Check with your hardware vendor first to see what your hardware will support.

Read this... ...MS KB QB 253912

Windows keeps data in physical memory so that it's immediately available if required. This data is stored in VCache and is faster than storing it in the disk-based swap file. Windows is supposed to dynamically expand and shrink the amount of VCache as RAM is needed for other tasks. The default for VCache is dynamic resizing.

The most memory that any of my W98 systems have is 384 MB. VCache is left at the default. I don't, for the most part, have problems with Windows 98 systems.

The major VCache problem occurred under W95. Supposedly, the bugs were fixed for W98, W98SE and WME, and you should need to do nothing with VCache. Supposedly.

That said, there is anecdotal evidence that people with unstable systems having 512 MB or more of RAM under W9X variants, have enjoyed more stable systems after limiting VCache. 256 MB of VCache should be more than enough. Some put this down as low as 8 MB.

So, even though if memory is not beyond 512 MB, if treating it as if it is beyond 512 MB causes the system to operate better... ...The Microsoft KB article gives more than advice about only VCache.

One of the anecdotal recommendations is that when the system has more than 128 MB of RAM, set a VCache maximum that is no more than about 70% of your total RAM.

OTH, some people express having no problems with 512 MB or more under Windows 98. Good for them.

 

Sometimes there are weird quirks that show up with more than 512 MB.

In my case, I had absolutely no problems with 768 MB ram in win98se. My problems showed up, when I upgraded to 1 gigabyte ram.

The most pressing problem, was that my resolution was limited to 640x480x16 colors, with the ATI driver that came with my XPert 2000 Pro AGP card. I did everything in the MS Knowledge Base, to NO avail. After a weekend of tearing my hair out, it finally dawned on me, to get an updated driver from the ATI website. That cured that problem!

The next problem, which was a minot annoyance, was that I could no longer initialize UMB and have proper video resolution. No big deal.

The nasty surprise, reared its ugly little head this month, when I tried to download pics from my kodak EZ200 digital camera. Windows now throws a "Not enough memory" error at me, and I have not only 1 GB ram, but also 82% resources free.

So, now I have a choice: Mandrake Linux supported digital camera, xor, Win XP Pro and download the software from Kodak to use my camera in XP.

I wrote my experiences to show that there is variance (wide, indeed) with 98se and greater than 512 MB ram.

Charles

 

This is the problem with 98 and more than 512 ram installed. The Vcache has taken over all the ram.
Sarissi, here is a possible solution to your problem. Open your C:\Windows\System.Ini file with Notepad. Scroll down until you reach vcache, and add this line below vcache.
MaxFileSize=524288
Save and reboot. This limits the size of the virtual cache to 512 mb [512 x 1024]

 

Markp64;

I tried that several days ago and it didn't work. I decided to try it with a 128 MB limit, and this time it worked. Now for a better camera.

I may still ugrade to XP Pro, but I can do that on a more leisurely basis, now.

 

The entry is actually

MaxFileCache= ....