1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

Speeding up Windows 98 and Computer

Discussion in 'Legacy Windows' started by jordoe28, 2006/03/24.

  1. 2006/03/29
    jordoe28

    jordoe28 Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2005/05/05
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Road to Recovery for Win98 64MB Ram Computers:
    **First go to My Computer, Properties, Performance, and check your System Resources Percentage. Mine was at 39%.
    1. Go to add/remove programs and uninstall any unneeded or unwanted programs
    2. Clear Temporary Internet Files, Cache, History etc.
    3. Empty Recycle Bin
    4. Scan for Viruses/Spyware and fix any problems
    5. Start up in Dos, type in scanreg /opt and Enter, than scanreg /fix and Enter. This will clean up and rebuild your registry.
    6. Right Click on My Computer, then Properties. Click the Performance tab. Click on Graphics, and turn the accelerator to None.
    7. Still in My Computer Properties, Click on Virtual Memory, and change the Minimum from 0 to 128. Do not restart computer yet.
    8. Back in Windows, go to Run, type in msconfig and then click on the Config.SYS tab. Click New and type in Dos=High,Umb . When asked to restart computer click Yes.
    9. Go back into Msconfig, and put computer into safemode. Once in Safemode run a full system Disk Check, fix problems, then run a Defrag.
    10. When finished all that, go back into Msconfig, Under General, Click on Selective Startup. Check off everything in that list.
    11. In Msconfig, go to the Startup pad and uncheck any items that do not need to be running in the background. Ie. Messenger, Microsoft Works, etc. When done Click Apply, and restart computer.
    **Now go back to My Computer, Properties, Performance and check your system resources. Mine now reads 83% and that's with Zone Alarm Firewall and AVG Anti Virus running.

    Startup Time Before (from the time I push the on button untill Windows completely loads) = 4 mins 35 sec.
    Startup Time After I did those steps = 3 mins 09 secs
    And the freezing has completely stopped.
     
    Last edited: 2006/03/29
  2. 2006/03/29
    jordoe28

    jordoe28 Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2005/05/05
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    So on the Windows 98 Computer I should've set the minimum on the Virtual Memory to 172, and the Maximum to 172?

    Because As of right now I only switched the minimum to 128 and left the Maximum at what it said.

    So it would be better if i switched it to a 'fixed' swapfile of 172min 172max? I have just under 5 gigabyte hard drive , and I'm only using about 50% of it (2 gig).

    I've also heard that when windows manages the swapfile it gets fragmented and windows defrag can't defrag it. Well this computer has been running for 8 years under "let windows manage my virtual mem" and never had a clean install or anything so I imagine it's pretty fragmented. I've heard that if you disable the swap file..go into safe mode and do the defrag..it will defrag the swap file..but I also heard if you run out of ram while defragging ur computer could crash if virtual mem is disabled.
     
    Last edited: 2006/03/29

  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2006/03/29
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    jordoe28,
    thanks for the post on the steps you took to revitalize the old Win98 computer. A lot of members will find it useful!

    I found the site where I picked up the tweaks I did to WinME. Check out PuterGeek by clicking on the "Site Map" which is the quickest way to get to the Win98 tweaks and the stuff you missed, Vcache.

    By the way, which processor is in it?

    When I was tweaking WinME, PuterGeek suggested to set a fixed swap file. I went for 2.5 X 256 = 640 MB (don't ask why 2.5 x RAM ... :p ... it was something I read somewhere). Anyway, I set the swap file to min = max = 640 MB and restarted. WinME squealed like a pig and immediately complained about running out of Virtual Memory. I couldn't even open a letter next to the computer without it freezing! I went back and set the max free (no limit) and everything was well. I'm not sure but I think it would be the same on Win98. Even if it isn't, below is my take on why a max setting is of no value:

    The idea behind a fixed size swapfile is to avoid fragmentation. If the min setting is high enough to prevent resizing, that end is met. If the max setting is unlimited the OS will not have a "feeling of restraint" and will not complain. If the min setting should be exceeded (occasionally) and the swap file increased in size, when the need is history ... :cool: ... it gets sized down again to the min value and it is again in one contiguous chunk.

    Christer
     
  5. 2006/03/29
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    You probably have "defragmented" the swap file by setting the min value. There was probably not a contiguous chunk of free space (128 MB) until after everything else on the drive.

    Another tip is to get a better defragmenter. The one in WinME is much better (quicker) than the Win98 variant.

    Start a defragmentation but when the map is complete and it starts the job, immediately pause it. Scroll down and if you find a giant chunk of red squares, that's the swap file in one nice contiguous chunk.

    Christer
     
  6. 2006/03/29
    jordoe28

    jordoe28 Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2005/05/05
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what your saying is I should leave it at 128 and keep the max to unlimited? Or should I increase both? or just increase the min?
     
  7. 2006/03/29
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    My tests indicate that with 64 MB RAM, a swap file min setting of 128 MB may be adequate. It never went above ~110 MB. However, to be on the safe side, set it to 3 x RAM = 192 MB. Leave the max setting "unlimited ".

    Christer
     
  8. 2006/03/29
    jordoe28

    jordoe28 Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2005/05/05
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    okay thanks.

    I was looking at that PuterGeek site and I came across Optimising my vCache..which is apparently more important than the virtual memory. Should I do that too following this guy's steps ? Here;s the link http://www.putergeek.com/vcache/

    More of what I'm asking here is like he gives me two options..one for a gamer, and one for top performance..Well I'm looking for top performance but my grandpa does play on Pogo..I don't know if that's conisdered gaming.
     
    Last edited: 2006/03/29
  9. 2006/03/29
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    Well, I haven't played a single computer game in my life ... :rolleyes: ... apart from a single session in a World War Two flight simulator.

    I wouldn't say that Vcache is more important than a sensible swap file setting but every little bit adds to the result. I would go for overall performance. Copy and paste

    MinFileCache=2048
    MaxFileCache=16384

    into the correct location (below [vcache]) in the file c:\windows\system.ini

    Christer
     
  10. 2006/03/29
    jordoe28

    jordoe28 Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2005/05/05
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I did the [vcache] thing and changed it to 2048 and 16384 and restarted the computer. Attempted to go on the internet and a warning thing popped up saying.. "Windows does not have enough memory to load application, quit one or more programs and try again." So I exited it, checked my System Resources and they said "very low 6%" Whereas before I did this, I had 83%. So I went back to system.ini and undid the settings and now I'm back to square one. What went wrong:confused:
     
  11. 2006/03/29
    rsinfo

    rsinfo SuperGeek Alumni

    Joined:
    2005/12/25
    Messages:
    4,038
    Likes Received:
    174
    Had played around this VCache thing but that was long long ago.

    You would be better off defragmenting your hard disk the proper way - get a decent defragmenter or download a trial & run it.
     
  12. 2006/03/29
    mattman

    mattman Inactive Alumni

    Joined:
    2002/06/10
    Messages:
    8,198
    Likes Received:
    63
    The Win 98 system is quite "small" (although fine for when it was new). I would not tweak too many settings. Setting a minimum swapfile should be fine if you have the diskspace, although I would not set a maximum. Setting maximums will "scare" Windows if it only has 64Mb of RAM to start with.

    Tweaking virtual memory is really for systems with large amounts of physical memory.

    I think Norton Utilities does a good job of defrag. I've used Windows defrag, then immediately rerun with Norton (although I have seen recommendations not to run both). I have also run Windows defrag one time then Norton the next time...no problems. Norton rearranges the data differently to Windows so it will be hard work for the HDD, but I know it's defragged when I finish :).

    I get Norton Utilities to set the size of the swapfile and set it at the front of the disk. Seems to work very well for me. That was using Norton 2000 version, not sure if the recent versions will even work on 98.

    Matt
     
  13. 2006/03/30
    mattman

    mattman Inactive Alumni

    Joined:
    2002/06/10
    Messages:
    8,198
    Likes Received:
    63
    jordoe28, BTW, if everything seems to be running well, what happens if you reset the Graphics Acceleration back to default?

    Christer, re: shutdown-restart.
    From my personal view (this could be quite wrong), the RAM is like a set of pigeonholes into which the program information is loaded. The more RAM, the larger the number of pigeonholes (addresses) that Windows can use and it also has to keep a record of where that information is. The program loads as if a set of cards comes along to the placed in the p/h's...big program, lots of pigeonholes. If you have a small set of addresses (p/h's) you may fill most of those p/hs, then if more cards come along you need to squeeze the remainder in or let them overflow into another sort of holding device. Priority... new set of cards has priority over the old set, take out the old set and put them into overflow if there is not enough space for the new set. If you have a large set of pigeonholes, you may want to put the cards into the holes closest to you rather than climbing a ladder to put them at the very top.

    At shutdown Windows has to "save settings" so it has to search the addresses for changes and save them as hardfile. Searching is easier if the addresses (p/h's) are handy. At startup Windows has to look at the amount of RAM it has available and start "shuffling" the information into that space.

    Hope my imagination is not too RAMpant :D
    Matt
     
    Last edited: 2006/03/30
  14. 2006/03/30
    markp62

    markp62 Geek Member Alumni

    Joined:
    2002/05/01
    Messages:
    4,012
    Likes Received:
    16
    With a 64 mb system, it would be better to let windows handle the Vcache settings. While the default max setting for the Vcache is almost all of your RAM, in actual usage the average size will hardly be over 8mb. The Vcache is designed to shrink and grow, to allow priority RAM usage to applications.
    The Vcache is performance enhancing. For example, on a freshly started system with an active internet connection, open Internet Explorer, then close it. Open it again, and it should open just a little bit faster. This is the Vcache at work.
     
  15. 2006/03/30
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    The computers I work on right now were both upgraded to 256 MB RAM and I tweaked Vcache to MinFileCache=2048, MaxFileCache=32768. I will once again reduce RAM in one of them to 64 MB and apply MinFileCache=2048, MaxFileCache=16384.

    I don't understand it ... :confused: ... limiting the code in RAM for applications that aren't in use ... :confused: ... how can that impair the functionality of an application that IS in use?

    Christer
     
  16. 2006/03/30
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    Okey, the Swedish Inquisition has finished torturing the PII/350 with 64 MB RAM and a minimum size of 256 MB for the swapfile.

    I first ran it with Vcache set to MinFileCache=2048, MaxFileCache=16384 and did a few tests.

    Next, I removed the entry for Vcache from system.ini, restarted and repeated the tests.

    There was no appreciable difference (+/- 2 MB) and the results in both cases:

    (RAM usage + swapfile usage + % free resources)

    Win98 started + Norton System Doctor: 63 MB + 52 MB + 81 %

    + a few (6) Office 97 applications and Acrobat Reader minimized: 63 MB + 93 MB + 58 %

    I let it idle for a minute and Symantec LiveUpdate was launched in the background. During the LU session, swapfile usage peaked at 137 MB and when finished, the readings were: 46 MB + 94 MB + 56 %

    I went online to Windows BBS: 63 MB + 106 MB + 49 %

    I closed everything: 55 MB + 55 MB + 70 %

    I couldn't reproduce your situation which prompts a follow-up question: Apart from the Vcache settings, which minimum size for the swap file did you apply?

    I will reduce my minimum size for the swapfile to 128 MB, set the Vcache to MinFileCache=2048, MaxFileCache=16384 and repeat the tests. Hmm ... :eek: ... the Swedish Inquisition is still on!

    Christer
     
  17. 2006/03/30
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    In the previous post, I forgot to mention that in addition to Norton System Doctor to monitor the system, Norton Internet Security (FW and AV) is running in the background.

    Reducing the minimum size of the swap file to 128 MB produced no significant difference. The only thing that happened was it being increased in size while LiveUpdate was doing its thing. It happened in two steps, to 136 MB and then to 140 MB. When LU had finished, it stayed at 140 MB until I went online to Windows BBS when it was reduced back to 128 MB.

    I still haven't been able to reproduce your problems.

    Since the increasing of the size of the swap file is incremental (small steps), I am now more convinced of the benefits of a sensible minimum size. 128 MB seems to be on the low side but may be enough for your grandpa. However, I would set it to 192 MB (3 x RAM) or even 256 MB (4 x RAM).

    This concludes the tests of the Swedish Inquisition ... :cool: ... !

    Christer
     
    Last edited: 2006/03/30
  18. 2006/03/31
    James Martin

    James Martin Geek Member

    Joined:
    2003/05/15
    Messages:
    2,655
    Likes Received:
    79
    Wow!.......Great thread!

    I've bookmarked it for now.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.