Ram: more vs. speed?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's on
sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?
36 answers Last reply
More about speed
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote in message
    news:tL%gd.109863$Ot3.59278@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    > My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's on
    > sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?

    Yes. Even with Windows XP, you will rarely use more than 512MB of RAM. The
    PC2100 will therefore slow the system down. -Dave
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:

    >My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's on
    >sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?

    If he is using Windows XP, maybe not.

    If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more
    than 512MB anyway.

    How much ram you can use depends on your hardware and software. The 512MB
    is a lot for most Windows personal computers, in my opinion.

    Good luck.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote in message
    news:Xns95931401AB0CEwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48...
    > "MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:
    >
    >>My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's on
    >>sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?
    >
    > If he is using Windows XP, maybe not.
    >
    > If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more
    > than 512MB anyway.
    >
    > How much ram you can use depends on your hardware and software. The 512MB
    > is a lot for most Windows personal computers, in my opinion.
    >
    > Good luck

    Sorry for the lack of info. He's using XP Home Ed. I read somewhere that
    if you use pc2100 and pc2700 ram at the same time, the 2700 ram will be
    brought down to 2100 speeds.

    That's why I was wondering if the extra 128 is worth it for only having 2100
    speed.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:
    >"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote in message
    >> "MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:

    >>>My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's
    >>>on sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?

    >> If he is using Windows XP, maybe not.
    >> If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use
    >> more than 512MB anyway.
    >> How much ram you can use depends on your hardware and software. The
    >> 512MB is a lot for most Windows personal computers, in my opinion.
    >
    >Sorry for the lack of info. He's using XP Home Ed. I read somewhere
    >that if you use pc2100 and pc2700 ram at the same time, the 2700 ram
    >will be brought down to 2100 speeds. That's why I was wondering if the
    >extra 128 is worth it for only having 2100 speed.

    Does that have something to do with whether or not you're going to buy
    more memory? I would think that PC2700 on sale would be no more than
    PC2100. Yes you should buy it.

    Running Windows XP with 512MB or 640MB is a huge improvement over 128MB.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote in message
    news:vG0hd.109906$Ot3.68952@twister.nyc.rr.com...

    "I read somewhere that if you use pc2100 and pc2700 ram at the same time,
    the 2700 ram will be
    brought down to 2100 speeds".


    that is correct

    Warty
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:57:56 GMT There I was minding my own business
    and then John Doe <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote :

    >"MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:
    >
    >>My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's on
    >>sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?
    >
    >If he is using Windows XP, maybe not.
    >
    >If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more
    >than 512MB anyway.

    Bollocks!!!!!
    Another idiot post.


    --
    Free Windows/PC help,
    http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
    remove obvious to reply
    email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
    Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
    http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:38:17 GMT There I was minding my own business
    and then "MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote :

    >My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's on
    >sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?

    Depends on his usage but if his board fully supports the speed of the
    512 meg then just use that otherwise it will be dragged down to the PC
    2100 speed and for the extra 128 meg it may not be worth the bother.
    It's quite complicated actually because if the board
    supports,"RAM Interleaving" then having the two sticks in could
    actually be good however I would stick with my first supposition e.g
    use the new single 512 stick.


    --
    Free Windows/PC help,
    http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
    remove obvious to reply
    email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
    Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
    http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Troll.

    Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

    >Path: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!news.glorb.com!news.addix.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
    >From: Shep¸ <nospam@nospam.net>
    >Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
    >Subject: Re: Ram: more vs. speed?
    >Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:08:06 +0000
    >Lines: 25
    >Message-ID: <hivao05q81aijqgdg3a2rbfotobrjc3lth@4ax.com>
    >References: <tL%gd.109863$Ot3.59278@twister.nyc.rr.com> <Xns95931401AB0CEwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48>
    >Reply-To: nospam@nospam.net
    >Mime-Version: 1.0
    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 2WMKgymvez6BNalrFhvBQQFdocdexxSfWqSSTAJ7BPxoWGrWI=
    >X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553
    >Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:420881
    >
    >On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:57:56 GMT There I was minding my own business
    >and then John Doe <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote :
    >
    >>"MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's on
    >>>sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?
    >>
    >>If he is using Windows XP, maybe not.
    >>
    >>If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more
    >>than 512MB anyway.
    >
    >Bollocks!!!!!
    >Another idiot post.
    >
    >
    >
    >--
    >Free Windows/PC help,
    >http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
    >remove obvious to reply
    >email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
    >Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
    >http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe wrote:

    > Troll.

    He wasn't very diplomatic about it but his point is essentially correct.
    Win9x *can* work with more than 512 Meg of RAM.

    The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'; the
    workaround for which is to limit vcache to under 512 meg in system.ini.

    >
    > Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Path: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!news.glorb.com!news.addix.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
    >>From: Shep¸ <nospam@nospam.net>
    >>Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
    >>Subject: Re: Ram: more vs. speed?
    >>Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:08:06 +0000
    >>Lines: 25
    >>Message-ID: <hivao05q81aijqgdg3a2rbfotobrjc3lth@4ax.com>
    >>References: <tL%gd.109863$Ot3.59278@twister.nyc.rr.com> <Xns95931401AB0CEwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48>
    >>Reply-To: nospam@nospam.net
    >>Mime-Version: 1.0
    >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >>X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 2WMKgymvez6BNalrFhvBQQFdocdexxSfWqSSTAJ7BPxoWGrWI=
    >>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553
    >>Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:420881
    >>
    >>On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:57:56 GMT There I was minding my own business
    >>and then John Doe <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote :
    >>
    >>
    >>>"MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's on
    >>>>sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?
    >>>
    >>>If he is using Windows XP, maybe not.
    >>>
    >>>If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more
    >>>than 512MB anyway.
    >>
    >>Bollocks!!!!!
    >>Another idiot post.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>--
    >>Free Windows/PC help,
    >>http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
    >>remove obvious to reply
    >>email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
    >>Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
    >>http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:37:26 GMT There I was minding my own business
    and then John Doe <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote :

    >Troll.

    You know so little.


    --
    Free Windows/PC help,
    http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
    remove obvious to reply
    email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
    Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
    http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

    >Win9x *can* work with more than 512 Meg of RAM.
    >The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'; the
    >workaround for which is to limit vcache to under 512 meg in system.ini.

    According to everything I've seen, your workaround for the vcache bug is
    slightly off, but in the context of the original post to this discussion
    group, this argument is bizarre anyway IMO.

    For what it's worth.
    Besides that bug, probably only in rare circumstances would anyone be
    able to use more than 512MB of RAM with Windows 98 due to the fact that
    resource memory is limited/fixed regardless of RAM size.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe wrote:

    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Win9x *can* work with more than 512 Meg of RAM.
    >>The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'; the
    >>workaround for which is to limit vcache to under 512 meg in system.ini.
    >
    >
    > According to everything I've seen, your workaround for the vcache bug is
    > slightly off, but in the context of the original post to this discussion
    > group, this argument is bizarre anyway IMO.

    'Slightly off' how?

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912

    There's another problem at 1 Gig RAM with shared memory video

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871

    but we weren't talking about a gig, or more, of RAM.


    > For what it's worth.
    > Besides that bug, probably only in rare circumstances would anyone be
    > able to use more than 512MB of RAM with Windows 98 due to the fact that
    > resource memory is limited/fixed regardless of RAM size.

    Depends on what one is doing with it. Photoshop will happily fill up RAM
    for you.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >John Doe wrote:
    >> David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

    >>>Win9x *can* work with more than 512 Meg of RAM.
    >>>The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug';
    >>>the workaround for which is to limit vcache to under 512 meg in
    >>>system.ini.
    >>
    >> According to everything I've seen, your workaround for the vcache bug
    >> is slightly off, but in the context of the original post to this
    >> discussion group, this argument is bizarre anyway IMO.
    >
    >'Slightly off' how?

    I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to what
    that value should be.

    >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912

    One of Microsoft's workarounds in that article is to remove all but 512MB
    of RAM.

    >There's another problem at 1 Gig RAM ...
    >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871

    Microsoft's workaround in that article is to remove all but 512MB of RAM.

    >> For what it's worth.
    >> Besides that bug, probably only in rare circumstances would anyone be
    >> able to use more than 512MB of RAM with Windows 98 due to the fact that
    >> resource memory is limited/fixed regardless of RAM size.
    >
    >Depends on what one is doing with it.

    There might be exceptions, you might even be able to produce an exception,
    but I didn't say there wasn't.

    If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft wouldn't
    be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe wrote:

    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >>John Doe wrote:
    >>
    >>>David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>>Win9x *can* work with more than 512 Meg of RAM.
    >>>>The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug';
    >>>>the workaround for which is to limit vcache to under 512 meg in
    >>>>system.ini.
    >>>
    >>>According to everything I've seen, your workaround for the vcache bug
    >>>is slightly off, but in the context of the original post to this
    >>>discussion group, this argument is bizarre anyway IMO.
    >>
    >>'Slightly off' how?
    >
    >
    > I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to what
    > that value should be.
    >
    >
    >>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912
    >
    >
    > One of Microsoft's workarounds in that article is to remove all but 512MB
    > of RAM.

    That's a misleading comment. Removing 'the problem' is always a
    'workaround' (sic), as in "Doc, it hurts when I laugh. Then don't laugh",
    but you leave out the fact they first describe precisely the solution I
    stated: limiting vcache to under 512 Meg in system.ini.

    >
    >
    >>There's another problem at 1 Gig RAM ...
    >>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871
    >
    >
    > Microsoft's workaround in that article is to remove all but 512MB of RAM.

    For one, it's specific to motherboards with shared memory video and,
    second, I'd suggest they say 512 Meg to avoid making the description
    unnecessarily long by repeating the other note about limiting vcache. Or
    else the title would be "Blue Screen Appears When You Start Computer with
    '512 MB' or More of RAM" rather than "Blue Screen Appears When You Start
    Computer with 1 GB or More of RAM." 512 Meg is the 'works here without
    further explanation required' solution.


    >>>For what it's worth.
    >>>Besides that bug, probably only in rare circumstances would anyone be
    >>>able to use more than 512MB of RAM with Windows 98 due to the fact that
    >>>resource memory is limited/fixed regardless of RAM size.
    >>
    >>Depends on what one is doing with it.
    >
    >
    > There might be exceptions, you might even be able to produce an exception,
    > but I didn't say there wasn't.

    I already gave you one, that you snipped out, on the same line with what
    you left in.


    > If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft wouldn't
    > be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM.

    Two problems with that conclusion. The first is, no, recommending it be
    removed to fix an otherwise unfixable problem doesn't suggest more than 512
    Meg isn't 'useful', if it would WORK, and it would be a heck of a lot
    easier for MS to simply say so rather than provide a workaround in the
    first article. And the second problem is that Microsoft is not, as you
    claim, "explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM." It
    only looks that way with your selective ignoring of the top listed solution
    in the first article, limit vcache to 512 MB, and ignoring the specific
    hardware configuration, shared RAM video, that potentially conflicts with 1
    GB in the second.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >John Doe wrote:

    ....

    >> I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to
    >> what that value should be.

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912

    >> One of Microsoft's workarounds in that article is to remove all but
    >> 512MB of RAM.
    >
    >That's a misleading comment. Removing 'the problem' is always a
    >'workaround' (sic),

    I think "sic" usually refers to the preceding word, but Google shows
    647,000 English messages for "workaround" including your usage a few posts
    ago. I've lost something in the translation.

    >but you leave out the fact they first describe precisely the solution I
    >stated: limiting vcache to under 512 Meg in system.ini.

    I hereby plainly state and acknowledge that is another workaround.

    A third workaround is to "Use the System Configuration utility to limit
    the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512MB or less." That workaround
    is actually listed second in the first article, but it's the third
    mentioned here in this current thread.

    Two out of three workarounds listed on that page make more than 512MB of
    memory completely unusable.

    Those two are the second and third workarounds. I can see that the
    workaround you like is on top. However, the article says "use one of the
    following methods" and does not even hint that the workarounds are
    arranged in order of priority. Looks like there was a 33% chance that any
    of those three workarounds could have ended up being the first.

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871

    >> Microsoft's workaround in that article is to remove all but 512MB of
    >> RAM.
    >
    >For one, it's specific to motherboards with shared memory video and,
    >second, I'd suggest they say 512 Meg to avoid making the description
    >unnecessarily long by repeating the other note about limiting vcache.

    I'm glad you provided the references.

    >Or else the title would be "Blue Screen Appears When You Start Computer
    >with '512 MB' or More of RAM" rather than "Blue Screen Appears When You
    >Start Computer with 1 GB or More of RAM." 512 Meg is the 'works here
    >without further explanation required' solution.

    Yes, it certainly is a mess.

    The first article explicitly states:
    "CAUSE ... Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle 1 GB or
    more of RAM. 1 GB or more of RAM can lead to potential system
    instability."

    That statement has nothing to do with shared memory.

    >> If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft
    >> wouldn't be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of
    >> RAM.
    >
    >Two problems with that conclusion. The first is, no, recommending it be
    >removed to fix an otherwise unfixable problem doesn't suggest more than
    >512 Meg isn't 'useful', if it would WORK, and it would be a heck of a
    >lot easier for MS to simply say so rather than provide a workaround in
    >the first article.

    Some sellers could not care less, wouldn't know better, and would gladly
    install whatever the mainboard can handle.

    In my opinion, it wouldn't be easier.

    >And the second problem is that Microsoft is not, as you
    >claim, "explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM."
    >It only looks that way with your selective ignoring of the top listed
    >solution in the first article, limit vcache to 512 MB, and ignoring the
    >specific hardware configuration, shared RAM video, that potentially
    >conflicts with 1 GB in the second.

    Two of three solutions in the first article are to disable or remove the
    extra memory. The only solution mentioned in the second article is to
    remove the extra memory. Shared video memory is mentioned in the first
    article as well, and that includes memory used by AGP video cards.
    Resource memory is fixed in Windows 98 and Millennium, regardless of RAM
    quantity, and most Windows 98 users are going to run into problems before
    using 512MB of system memory. Windows 98 and Millennium were not designed
    for more than 512MB of RAM.

    Have a great day (or night) anyway.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe wrote:

    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >>John Doe wrote:
    >
    >
    > ...
    >
    >
    >>>I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to
    >>>what that value should be.
    >
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912
    >
    >
    >>>One of Microsoft's workarounds in that article is to remove all but
    >>>512MB of RAM.
    >>
    >>That's a misleading comment. Removing 'the problem' is always a
    >>'workaround' (sic),
    >
    >
    > I think "sic" usually refers to the preceding word,

    Yes. Sure does.

    > but Google shows
    > 647,000 English messages for "workaround" including your usage a few posts
    > ago. I've lost something in the translation.

    I have no idea why you'd be doing google searches to find the word right in
    front of the "(sic)" since it's, well, right there in front of it.


    >>but you leave out the fact they first describe precisely the solution I
    >>stated: limiting vcache to under 512 Meg in system.ini.
    >
    >
    > I hereby plainly state and acknowledge that is another workaround.

    That really settles it, you know. The question was whether windows98 could
    work with more than 512 Meg of RAM. Workaround 1: yes. The rest is moot.

    >
    > A third workaround is to "Use the System Configuration utility to limit
    > the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512MB or less." That workaround
    > is actually listed second in the first article, but it's the third
    > mentioned here in this current thread.
    >
    > Two out of three workarounds listed on that page make more than 512MB of
    > memory completely unusable.

    That there are 2, or a thousand, ways to have it not work is irrelevant as
    it's not a 'vote'. One working solution is all it takes.

    > Those two are the second and third workarounds.

    Since the point of having more than 512 Meg of RAM is to use more than 512
    Meg of RAM I don't consider those to be 'workarounds', regardless of
    Microsoft calling them such, and is why I placed the "(sic)" after the term
    up above.

    > I can see that the
    > workaround you like is on top.

    The issue was whether Windows98 could be made to work with more than 512
    Meg of RAM and I "like" it because it satisfies the goal.

    > However, the article says "use one of the
    > following methods" and does not even hint that the workarounds are
    > arranged in order of priority.

    It doesn't need to 'hint'. In the first place, that's standard practice
    and, in the second, it's the one that accomplishes the goal. That's how I
    pick solutions.

    > Looks like there was a 33% chance that any
    > of those three workarounds could have ended up being the first.

    No, the logic of the order is obvious. The first one solves the problem,
    making the extra RAM usable, but requires a registry edit: a thing that
    some people are reluctant to do so some alternatives for the squeamish are
    in order. The second one is simply checking a box and typing in a number:
    simple, easy, and 'safe' but it renders the extra RAM unusable and, while
    you can do it 'right away', it's silly to leave the unused RAM in the box
    forever. The third one requires opening the box and messing with the hardware.


    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871
    >
    >
    >>>Microsoft's workaround in that article is to remove all but 512MB of
    >>>RAM.
    >>
    >>For one, it's specific to motherboards with shared memory video and,
    >>second, I'd suggest they say 512 Meg to avoid making the description
    >>unnecessarily long by repeating the other note about limiting vcache.
    >
    >
    > I'm glad you provided the references.

    You are, no doubt, thanking me for the second link which has as the one and
    only sentence under "Symptoms:" If your computer has 1 gigabyte (GB) or
    more of random access memory (RAM)
    ---> with shared video memory,<---
    the computer may boot to a blue screen error when you try to start Windows
    Millennium Edition (Me) or Windows 98.


    >>Or else the title would be "Blue Screen Appears When You Start Computer
    >>with '512 MB' or More of RAM" rather than "Blue Screen Appears When You
    >>Start Computer with 1 GB or More of RAM." 512 Meg is the 'works here
    >>without further explanation required' solution.
    >
    >
    > Yes, it certainly is a mess.

    Hardly.

    >
    > The first article explicitly states:
    > "CAUSE ... Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle 1 GB or
    > more of RAM. 1 GB or more of RAM can lead to potential system
    > instability."

    You'll notice that 1 GB is not the amount of memory the other poster was
    considering.

    >
    > That statement has nothing to do with shared memory.

    Try reading the whole thing instead of culling a phrase or two here and
    there like you did the last time.


    >>>If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft
    >>>wouldn't be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of
    >>>RAM.
    >>
    >>Two problems with that conclusion. The first is, no, recommending it be
    >>removed to fix an otherwise unfixable problem doesn't suggest more than
    >>512 Meg isn't 'useful', if it would WORK, and it would be a heck of a
    >>lot easier for MS to simply say so rather than provide a workaround in
    >>the first article.
    >
    >
    > Some sellers could not care less, wouldn't know better, and would gladly
    > install whatever the mainboard can handle.

    In which case they'd have a problem and have to go look at the knowledge
    base and if it said to simply remove the extra memory the matter would be
    over. But, no... there is a workaround for using it.

    If it just plain didn't work or only worked, as you imply, 1/3 of the time
    it would be a lot less pain and misery for MS to simply say "don't do it."


    > In my opinion, it wouldn't be easier.

    In my opinion that's an opinion derived simply for the sake of arguing.

    >>And the second problem is that Microsoft is not, as you
    >>claim, "explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM."
    >>It only looks that way with your selective ignoring of the top listed
    >>solution in the first article, limit vcache to 512 MB, and ignoring the
    >>specific hardware configuration, shared RAM video, that potentially
    >>conflicts with 1 GB in the second.
    >
    >
    > Two of three solutions in the first article are to disable or remove the
    > extra memory.

    Which, as I mentioned above, is irrelevant.

    > The only solution mentioned in the second article is to
    > remove the extra memory. Shared video memory is mentioned in the first
    > article as well, and that includes memory used by AGP video cards.

    No, "shared video memory" is a specific term and does not 'include' AGP.

    > Resource memory is fixed in Windows 98 and Millennium, regardless of RAM
    > quantity, and most Windows 98 users are going to run into problems before
    > using 512MB of system memory. Windows 98 and Millennium were not designed
    > for more than 512MB of RAM.

    The issue was not 'most users', 'typical users', or what you, or I, think
    are the apps they should be using. The issue was whether Windows98 could
    work with more than 512 Meg of RAM and the fact of the matter is it can,
    with a registry change.

    > Have a great day (or night) anyway.

    You too.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <Xns95943618F24CDwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48>, John Doe
    says...

    >
    > I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to what
    > that value should be.
    >
    Anything below 512MB.


    > If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft wouldn't
    > be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM.
    >
    That article was written when RAM cost shitloads.


    --
    Conor

    Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in
    news:10ock05gnppbqfe@corp.supernews.com:

    > The issue was whether Windows98 could
    > work with more than 512 Meg of RAM and the fact of the matter is it can,
    > with a registry change.
    >

    I have 768MBytes of ram and Win98SE and it works great. See below for
    additional refences regarding using greater than 512MBytes of ram. Ask on
    the microsoft usenet groups and you will get a reply from a microsoft MVP
    indicating that all you need is the proper vcache settings for this to
    work. And yes, win98 will use all of this ram. I have verified this with
    SysMon many times. Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does
    need to be setup properly.

    http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#vcache
    http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm

    Try:

    microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
    microsoft.public.win98.setup

    One reponse from a microsift MVP:

    Because some programs will not run without a swap file. There is no need
    to
    tinker with it--there is no performance hit unless actual paging occurs and
    for most users with 512 mb, the swap file will not be used even though it
    exists. The performance tweaks that have existed for years are really
    somewhat useless as they were developed when computers were under powered
    (ram and CPU).

    There are some tweaks required when 768 mb or more of ram is being used.
    Here's some info on ram you might find helpful:

    768 mb or more of ram:

    "Out of Memory" Errors with Large Amounts of RAM Installed 253912
    http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=253912

    This article contains instructions which basically say: add this line in
    system.ini, under [vcache]: MaxFileCache=512000
    ***************************

    1 gb or more of ram:

    Error Message: Insufficient Memory to Initialize Windows 184447
    http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=184447
    ***************************

    1.5 gb or more of ram:

    Computer May Reboot Continuously with More Than 1.5 GB of RAM 304943
    http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=304943

    --
    Regards

    Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98
    Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
    Knowledge Base Info:
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    JS wrote:

    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in
    > news:10ock05gnppbqfe@corp.supernews.com:
    >
    >
    >>The issue was whether Windows98 could
    >>work with more than 512 Meg of RAM and the fact of the matter is it can,
    >>with a registry change.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I have 768MBytes of ram and Win98SE and it works great. See below for
    > additional refences regarding using greater than 512MBytes of ram. Ask on
    > the microsoft usenet groups and you will get a reply from a microsoft MVP
    > indicating that all you need is the proper vcache settings for this to
    > work. And yes, win98 will use all of this ram. I have verified this with
    > SysMon many times. Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does
    > need to be setup properly.

    Yes. That is what I've been telling John Doe but he keeps insisting on
    claiming it won't work with selective culling and misreading of the
    knowledge base articles.


    >
    > http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#vcache
    > http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm
    >
    > Try:
    >
    > microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
    > microsoft.public.win98.setup
    >
    > One reponse from a microsift MVP:
    >
    > Because some programs will not run without a swap file. There is no need
    > to
    > tinker with it--there is no performance hit unless actual paging occurs and
    > for most users with 512 mb, the swap file will not be used even though it
    > exists. The performance tweaks that have existed for years are really
    > somewhat useless as they were developed when computers were under powered
    > (ram and CPU).
    >
    > There are some tweaks required when 768 mb or more of ram is being used.
    > Here's some info on ram you might find helpful:
    >
    > 768 mb or more of ram:
    >
    > "Out of Memory" Errors with Large Amounts of RAM Installed 253912
    > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=253912
    >
    > This article contains instructions which basically say: add this line in
    > system.ini, under [vcache]: MaxFileCache=512000
    > ***************************
    >
    > 1 gb or more of ram:
    >
    > Error Message: Insufficient Memory to Initialize Windows 184447
    > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=184447
    > ***************************
    >
    > 1.5 gb or more of ram:
    >
    > Computer May Reboot Continuously with More Than 1.5 GB of RAM 304943
    > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=304943
    >
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >John Doe wrote:
    >> David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>>John Doe wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> ...
    >>
    >>
    >>>>I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to
    >>>>what that value should be.
    >>
    >>
    >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912
    >>
    >>
    >>>>One of Microsoft's workarounds in that article is to remove all but
    >>>>512MB of RAM.
    >>>
    >>>That's a misleading comment. Removing 'the problem' is always a
    >>>'workaround' (sic),
    >>
    >>
    >> I think "sic" usually refers to the preceding word,
    >
    >Yes. Sure does.

    So what is wrong with the word "workaround"?

    >> Google shows 647,000 English messages for "workaround" including your usage a few posts
    >> ago.

    >>>but you leave out the fact they first describe precisely the solution I
    >>>stated: limiting vcache to under 512 Meg in system.ini.
    >>
    >>
    >> I hereby plainly state and acknowledge that is another workaround.
    >
    >That really settles it, you know. The question was whether windows98 could
    >work with more than 512 Meg of RAM. Workaround 1: yes. The rest is moot.

    You are claiming that because one of the problems is solved (in your opinion), Windows 98 works with more than 512MB of RAM. I disagree.

    >> A third workaround is to "Use the System Configuration utility to limit
    >> the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512MB or less." That workaround
    >> is actually listed second in the first article, but it's the third
    >> mentioned here in this current thread.
    >>
    >> Two out of three workarounds listed on that page make more than 512MB of
    >> memory completely unusable.
    >
    >That there are 2, or a thousand, ways to have it not work is irrelevant as
    >it's not a 'vote'. One working solution is all it takes.

    If it were a working solution to the one problem you think is all there is to making Windows 98 work with 512MB of RAM, then why are the other solutions listed? You admit that removing the extra memory is the most difficult solution, so what's the purpose of listing that solution?

    >> Those two are the second and third workarounds.
    >
    >Since the point of having more than 512 Meg of RAM is to use more than 512
    >Meg of RAM I don't consider those to be 'workarounds', regardless of
    >Microsoft calling them such, and is why I placed the "(sic)" after the term
    >up above.
    >
    >> I can see that the
    >> workaround you like is on top.
    >
    >The issue was whether Windows98 could be made to work with more than 512
    >Meg of RAM and I "like" it because it satisfies the goal.
    >
    >> However, the article says "use one of the
    >> following methods" and does not even hint that the workarounds are
    >> arranged in order of priority.
    >
    >It doesn't need to 'hint'. In the first place, that's standard practice
    >and, in the second, it's the one that accomplishes the goal. That's how I
    >pick solutions.
    >
    >> Looks like there was a 33% chance that any
    >> of those three workarounds could have ended up being the first.
    >
    >No, the logic of the order is obvious. The first one solves the problem,

    In your opinion, that solves one of the problems with making Windows 98 work with more than 512MB of RAM. If it were a worthwhile solution to one of the problems, someone would figure out exactly what that value should be.

    >making the extra RAM usable, but requires a registry edit: a thing that
    >some people are reluctant to do so some alternatives for the squeamish are
    >in order. The second one is simply checking a box and typing in a number:
    >simple, easy, and 'safe' but it renders the extra RAM unusable and, while
    >you can do it 'right away', it's silly to leave the unused RAM in the box
    >forever. The third one requires opening the box and messing with the hardware.

    That's nice, but taking the checkbox to limit usable memory is a whole lot easier than removing the RAM.

    >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871
    >>
    >>
    >>>>Microsoft's workaround in that article is to remove all but 512MB of
    >>>>RAM.
    >>>
    >>>For one, it's specific to motherboards with shared memory video and,
    >>>second, I'd suggest they say 512 Meg to avoid making the description
    >>>unnecessarily long by repeating the other note about limiting vcache.
    >>
    >>
    >> I'm glad you provided the references.
    >
    >You are, no doubt, thanking me for the second link

    No, I was thanking you for providing the references.

    >>>Or else the title would be "Blue Screen Appears When You Start Computer
    >>>with '512 MB' or More of RAM" rather than "Blue Screen Appears When You
    >>>Start Computer with 1 GB or More of RAM." 512 Meg is the 'works here
    >>>without further explanation required' solution.
    >>
    >> Yes, it certainly is a mess.
    >
    >Hardly.

    It is a big fat mass.

    >> The first article explicitly states:
    >> "CAUSE ... Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle 1 GB or
    >> more of RAM. 1 GB or more of RAM can lead to potential system
    >> instability."
    >
    >You'll notice that 1 GB is not the amount of memory the other poster was
    >considering.

    I also know that 1GB is more than 512MB, that the original poster is using Windows XP, and that the original poster can install and remove RAM.

    >> That statement has nothing to do with shared memory.
    >
    >Try reading the whole thing instead of culling a phrase or two here and
    >there like you did the last time.

    It's an entire paragraph, it's an entire section, it is the whole section under the bold print uppercase word "CAUSE".

    >>>>If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft
    >>>>wouldn't be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of
    >>>>RAM.
    >>>
    >>>Two problems with that conclusion. The first is, no, recommending it be
    >>>removed to fix an otherwise unfixable problem doesn't suggest more than
    >>>512 Meg isn't 'useful', if it would WORK, and it would be a heck of a
    >>>lot easier for MS to simply say so rather than provide a workaround in
    >>>the first article.
    >>
    >> Some sellers could not care less, wouldn't know better, and would gladly
    >> install whatever the mainboard can handle.

    >... there is a workaround for using [more than 512MB of RAM].

    There are at least two workarounds for allowing the extra memory to remain in the system. One of them is an obscure suggestion to limit vCatch memory. The other is to easily disable the extra memory.

    >If it just plain didn't work or only worked, as you imply, 1/3 of the time
    >it would be a lot less pain and misery for MS to simply say "don't do it."

    Less pain for Microsoft's customers to know that Windows 98 and Millennium can use only 512MB of RAM? I agree, that's one reason the rest of us are here.

    >> In my opinion, it wouldn't be easier.
    >
    >In my opinion that's an opinion derived simply for the sake of arguing.

    Isn't that what you're doing? My reply was apt, directed towards the original poster, yours was supporting a troll.

    You think using Windows 98 with more than 512MB of RAM is a good idea. I don't. Your conclusion is based on what you believe is a solution to one part of the problem. In my experience, that solution is fishy.

    >>>And the second problem is that Microsoft is not, as you
    >>>claim, "explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM."
    >>>It only looks that way with your selective ignoring of the top listed
    >>>solution in the first article, limit vcache to 512 MB, and ignoring the
    >>>specific hardware configuration, shared RAM video, that potentially
    >>>conflicts with 1 GB in the second.
    >>
    >> Two of three solutions in the first article are to disable or remove the
    >> extra memory. The only solution mentioned in the second article is to
    >> remove the extra memory. Shared video memory is mentioned in the first
    >> article as well, and that includes memory used by AGP video cards.
    >
    >No, "shared video memory" is a specific term and does not 'include' AGP.

    From the article:
    "This problem may occur more readily with Advanced Graphics Port (AGP) video adapters because the AGP aperture is also mapped to addresses in the system arena."

    That supports my point that it is a widespread problem, especially nowadays.

    >> Resource memory is fixed in Windows 98 and Millennium, regardless of RAM
    >> quantity, and most Windows 98 users are going to run into problems before
    >> using 512MB of system memory. Windows 98 and Millennium were not designed
    >> for more than 512MB of RAM.
    >
    >The issue was not 'most users', 'typical users', or what you, or I, think
    >are the apps they should be using.

    It is in the context of my post to which you took offense.

    >The issue was whether Windows98 could work with more than 512 Meg of RAM and the fact of the matter is it can,
    >with a registry change.

    I guess that is semantics on the word "work".

    I certainly agree that Windows 98 and Millennium can cope with more than 512MB of RAM installed on the mainboard. But since the original poster (again assuming that he were using Windows 98) can install and remove RAM, there is little or no reason for him to leave the extra memory.

    >> Have a great day (or night) anyway.
    >
    >You too.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe wrote:

    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >>John Doe wrote:
    >>
    >>>David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>John Doe wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to
    >>>>>what that value should be.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>One of Microsoft's workarounds in that article is to remove all but
    >>>>>512MB of RAM.
    >>>>
    >>>>That's a misleading comment. Removing 'the problem' is always a
    >>>>'workaround' (sic),
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>I think "sic" usually refers to the preceding word,
    >>
    >>Yes. Sure does.
    >
    >
    > So what is wrong with the word "workaround"?

    Should have asked that the first time instead of trying to be 'cute'.

    I explained it below in the last message.


    >>>Google shows 647,000 English messages for "workaround" including your usage a few posts
    >>>ago.
    >
    >
    >>>>but you leave out the fact they first describe precisely the solution I
    >>>>stated: limiting vcache to under 512 Meg in system.ini.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>I hereby plainly state and acknowledge that is another workaround.
    >>
    >>That really settles it, you know. The question was whether windows98 could
    >>work with more than 512 Meg of RAM. Workaround 1: yes. The rest is moot.
    >
    >
    > You are claiming that because one of the problems is solved (in your opinion),

    Not my 'opinion'. It's Microsoft who says it solves the 512 Meg boundary
    problem.

    > Windows 98 works with more than 512MB of RAM. I disagree.

    It's not a matter of 'opinion'. The knowledge base article says it fixes
    the 512 meg problem.


    >>>A third workaround is to "Use the System Configuration utility to limit
    >>>the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512MB or less." That workaround
    >>>is actually listed second in the first article, but it's the third
    >>>mentioned here in this current thread.
    >>>
    >>>Two out of three workarounds listed on that page make more than 512MB of
    >>>memory completely unusable.
    >>
    >>That there are 2, or a thousand, ways to have it not work is irrelevant as
    >>it's not a 'vote'. One working solution is all it takes.
    >
    >
    > If it were a working solution to the one problem you think is all there is to making Windows 98 work with 512MB of RAM, then why are the other solutions listed? You admit that removing the extra memory is the most difficult solution, so what's the purpose of listing that solution?

    I've already explained that.


    >>>Those two are the second and third workarounds.
    >>
    >>Since the point of having more than 512 Meg of RAM is to use more than 512
    >>Meg of RAM I don't consider those to be 'workarounds', regardless of
    >>Microsoft calling them such, and is why I placed the "(sic)" after the term
    >>up above.
    >>
    >>
    >>>I can see that the
    >>>workaround you like is on top.
    >>
    >>The issue was whether Windows98 could be made to work with more than 512
    >>Meg of RAM and I "like" it because it satisfies the goal.
    >>
    >>
    >>>However, the article says "use one of the
    >>>following methods" and does not even hint that the workarounds are
    >>>arranged in order of priority.
    >>
    >>It doesn't need to 'hint'. In the first place, that's standard practice
    >>and, in the second, it's the one that accomplishes the goal. That's how I
    >>pick solutions.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Looks like there was a 33% chance that any
    >>>of those three workarounds could have ended up being the first.
    >>
    >>No, the logic of the order is obvious. The first one solves the problem,
    >
    >
    > In your opinion, that solves one of the problems

    It is not my 'opinion'. The knowledge base article flat out gives it as a
    solution to THE problem with 512 Meg RAM.


    > with making Windows 98 work with more than 512MB of RAM. If it were a worthwhile solution to one of the problems, someone would figure out exactly what that value should be.

    The rest of that sentence is just absurd illogic.


    >>making the extra RAM usable, but requires a registry edit: a thing that
    >>some people are reluctant to do so some alternatives for the squeamish are
    >>in order. The second one is simply checking a box and typing in a number:
    >>simple, easy, and 'safe' but it renders the extra RAM unusable and, while
    >>you can do it 'right away', it's silly to leave the unused RAM in the box
    >>forever. The third one requires opening the box and messing with the hardware.
    >
    >
    > That's nice, but taking the checkbox to limit usable memory is a whole lot easier than removing the RAM.

    Which is why it's number 2.


    >>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>Microsoft's workaround in that article is to remove all but 512MB of
    >>>>>RAM.
    >>>>
    >>>>For one, it's specific to motherboards with shared memory video and,
    >>>>second, I'd suggest they say 512 Meg to avoid making the description
    >>>>unnecessarily long by repeating the other note about limiting vcache.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>I'm glad you provided the references.
    >>
    >>You are, no doubt, thanking me for the second link
    >
    >
    > No, I was thanking you for providing the references.

    Whatever.


    >>>>Or else the title would be "Blue Screen Appears When You Start Computer
    >>>>with '512 MB' or More of RAM" rather than "Blue Screen Appears When You
    >>>>Start Computer with 1 GB or More of RAM." 512 Meg is the 'works here
    >>>>without further explanation required' solution.
    >>>
    >>>Yes, it certainly is a mess.
    >>
    >>Hardly.
    >
    >
    > It is a big fat mass.

    ONly to those who can't read.

    >>>The first article explicitly states:
    >>>"CAUSE ... Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle 1 GB or
    >>>more of RAM. 1 GB or more of RAM can lead to potential system
    >>>instability."
    >>
    >>You'll notice that 1 GB is not the amount of memory the other poster was
    >>considering.
    >
    >
    > I also know that 1GB is more than 512MB, that the original poster is using Windows XP, and that the original poster can install and remove RAM.

    Good. So you know the second link has nothing to do with the amount of RAM
    under discussion.

    >>>That statement has nothing to do with shared memory.
    >>
    >>Try reading the whole thing instead of culling a phrase or two here and
    >>there like you did the last time.
    >
    >
    > It's an entire paragraph, it's an entire section, it is the whole section under the bold print uppercase word "CAUSE".

    Which is not the whole thing.

    >>>>>If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft
    >>>>>wouldn't be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of
    >>>>>RAM.
    >>>>
    >>>>Two problems with that conclusion. The first is, no, recommending it be
    >>>>removed to fix an otherwise unfixable problem doesn't suggest more than
    >>>>512 Meg isn't 'useful', if it would WORK, and it would be a heck of a
    >>>>lot easier for MS to simply say so rather than provide a workaround in
    >>>>the first article.
    >>>
    >>>Some sellers could not care less, wouldn't know better, and would gladly
    >>>install whatever the mainboard can handle.
    >
    >
    >>... there is a workaround for using [more than 512MB of RAM].
    >
    >
    > There are at least two workarounds for allowing the extra memory to remain in the system.

    The objective is not to simply 'leave RAM in the system'.

    > One of them is an obscure suggestion to limit vCatch memory.

    If you don't understand it just say so but it isn't 'obscure' to the rest
    of us.

    > The other is to easily disable the extra memory.

    Which is a rather stupid thing to do: install RAM and then disable it. But
    if that's your ''pick' then so be it.

    >>If it just plain didn't work or only worked, as you imply, 1/3 of the time
    >>it would be a lot less pain and misery for MS to simply say "don't do it."
    >
    >
    > Less pain for Microsoft's customers to know that Windows 98 and Millennium can use only 512MB of RAM?

    Yes, it would be, if it were true. The fact that there's a solution
    provided is proof that it isn't.

    > I agree, that's one reason the rest of us are here.

    What? To pass out faulty information, like you did, that Windows98 can't
    work with more than 512 MEg of RAM?

    >
    >
    >>>In my opinion, it wouldn't be easier.
    >>
    >>In my opinion that's an opinion derived simply for the sake of arguing.
    >
    >
    > Isn't that what you're doing? My reply was apt, directed towards the original poster, yours was supporting a troll.

    I posted the fact that Windows98 can work with more than 512 Meg of RAM,
    how it can be done, and the link to prove it. And you've been
    misrepresenting the facts ever since.

    >
    > You think using Windows 98 with more than 512MB of RAM is a good idea. I don't.

    I didn't say a thing about whether it was a 'good idea' or not. I simply
    pointed out you are wrong when you say Windows98 can't work with more than
    512 Meg of RAM.

    > Your conclusion is based on what you believe is a solution to one part of the problem.

    Being able to read plain English when MS publishes a solution is not a
    'belief' on my part.

    > In my experience, that solution is fishy.

    But you haven't provided ONE thing to suggest that comment.


    >>>>And the second problem is that Microsoft is not, as you
    >>>>claim, "explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM."
    >>>>It only looks that way with your selective ignoring of the top listed
    >>>>solution in the first article, limit vcache to 512 MB, and ignoring the
    >>>>specific hardware configuration, shared RAM video, that potentially
    >>>>conflicts with 1 GB in the second.
    >>>
    >>>Two of three solutions in the first article are to disable or remove the
    >>>extra memory. The only solution mentioned in the second article is to
    >>>remove the extra memory. Shared video memory is mentioned in the first
    >>>article as well, and that includes memory used by AGP video cards.
    >>
    >>No, "shared video memory" is a specific term and does not 'include' AGP.
    >
    >
    > From the article:
    > "This problem may occur more readily with Advanced Graphics Port (AGP) video adapters because the AGP aperture is also mapped to addresses in the system arena."

    That is NOT from the "1 gigabyte (GB) or more of random access memory (RAM)
    with shared video memory" article.

    >
    > That supports my point that it is a widespread problem, especially nowadays.

    All it 'supports' is that you can't tell one article from another and can't
    tell the difference between 512 Meg, 1 Gig, and 1.5 Gig of RAM.


    >>>Resource memory is fixed in Windows 98 and Millennium, regardless of RAM
    >>>quantity, and most Windows 98 users are going to run into problems before
    >>>using 512MB of system memory. Windows 98 and Millennium were not designed
    >>>for more than 512MB of RAM.
    >>
    >>The issue was not 'most users', 'typical users', or what you, or I, think
    >>are the apps they should be using.
    >
    >
    > It is in the context of my post to which you took offense.

    I didn't 'take offense' at your initial post. I corrected the incorrect
    information in it.


    >>The issue was whether Windows98 could work with more than 512 Meg of RAM and the fact of the matter is it can,
    >>with a registry change.
    >
    >
    > I guess that is semantics on the word "work".

    Only on your end.

    >
    > I certainly agree that Windows 98 and Millennium can cope with more than 512MB of RAM installed on the mainboard.

    'Cope'... semantics.

    It works.

    > But since the original poster (again assuming that he were using Windows 98) can install and remove RAM, there is little or no reason for him to leave the extra memory.

    Unless he wants to use it. And the 512 Meg article shows one how.

    >
    >
    >>>Have a great day (or night) anyway.
    >>
    >>You too.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
    >John Doe says...

    >> I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to what
    >> that value should be.
    >>
    >Anything below 512MB.

    Being very technically inclined, I find that difficult to accept. Can you be more specific?

    >> If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft wouldn't
    >> be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM.
    >>
    >That article was written when RAM cost shitloads.

    Which is after Windows 98 was written.


    >
    >
    >--
    >Conor
    >
    >Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    >
    >Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.karoo.co.uk!news.karoo.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
    >NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:54:05 -0600
    >From: Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
    >Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
    >Subject: Re: Ram: more vs. speed?
    >Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 22:53:57 -0000
    >Message-ID: <MPG.1bf0cee5f62ea447989982@news.giganews.com>
    >References: <tL%gd.109863$Ot3.59278@twister.nyc.rr.com> <Xns95931401AB0CEwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <hivao05q81aijqgdg3a2rbfotobrjc3lth@4ax.com> <Xns9593BD776B575wisdomfolly@151.164.30.42> <10ob5b6ohrplp0e@corp.supernews.com> <Xns9593D580125B3wisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <10oc345sig1pg38@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95943618F24CDwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48>
    >Organization: Home
    >MIME-Version: 1.0
    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.70.2067
    >Lines: 20
    >NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.249.185.110
    >X-Trace: sv3-TPN3LZQdX3DEIMC444Onlm5jhInPX9zcLvwsUmJBgf1Z4RBwbMcyU7G74YCUPB/Ly9bIJMbYHMDu+9q!4xgDIYmDGJ88Ndjq8O39pwOi1DJeRv/ZAj0pbG8Hw3GwrZqpKwvzyWn+ahD8HHgsRPQX60exqW1f!27sKS3t4Qvbta30=
    >X-Complaints-To: abuse@karoo.kcom.com
    >X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@karoo.kcom.com
    >X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
    >X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
    >X-Postfilter: 1.3.20
    >Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:420941
    >
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

    >> ... Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does need to
    >> be setup properly.
    >
    >Yes.

    Says who?

    >That is what I've been telling John Doe

    What you have been telling me is that what you believe is a solution to
    one problem is the solution to the whole problem with making Windows 98
    work with more than 512MB of RAM, while you completely ignore other
    problems like the fixed resource memory size.

    >but he keeps insisting on claiming it won't work

    I never claimed it wouldn't work, or cope, using your definition. In
    fact I stated that in my opinion there might be exceptions.

    >with selective culling and misreading of the knowledge base articles.

    Posting out of context here is an easy way for you to avoid facing the
    reality of the knowledge base articles.

    My reply was well-suited to the original poster (who as we now know does
    not even use Windows 98). Just like the troll you chose to concur with,
    you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!nntp.flash.net!newspeer1.stngva01.us.to.verio.net!verio!news.glorb.com!cyclone.bc.net!sjc1.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
    >From: David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    >Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
    >Subject: Re: Ram: more vs. speed?
    >Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 21:28:16 -0600
    >Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
    >Message-ID: <10odvmqr78dvpea@corp.supernews.com>
    >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
    >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    >MIME-Version: 1.0
    >References: <tL%gd.109863$Ot3.59278@twister.nyc.rr.com> <Xns95931401AB0CEwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <hivao05q81aijqgdg3a2rbfotobrjc3lth@4ax.com> <Xns9593BD776B575wisdomfolly@151.164.30.42> <10ob5b6ohrplp0e@corp.supernews.com> <Xns9593D580125B3wisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <10oc345sig1pg38@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95943618F24CDwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <10oc8uojmkbcla4@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95944C098127Fwisdomfolly@151.164.30.42> <10ock05gnppbqfe@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95949B09E8BEFDQ1V66HO78NX3AGH5MJX@127.0.0.1>
    >In-Reply-To: <Xns95949B09E8BEFDQ1V66HO78NX3AGH5MJX@127.0.0.1>
    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
    >Lines: 69
    >Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:420959
    >
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe wrote:

    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>... Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does need to
    >>>be setup properly.
    >>
    >>Yes.
    >
    >
    > Says who?

    Says the person I was replying to who has an actual system with 768 Meg
    working, and being used, and explained it in the portion you snipped out
    simply for the sake of asking that stupid question.


    >>That is what I've been telling John Doe
    >
    >
    > What you have been telling me is that what you believe is a solution to
    > one problem is the solution to the whole problem with making Windows 98
    > work with more than 512MB of RAM,

    The 'one problem' is the 'problem' that was under discussion.

    > while you completely ignore other
    > problems like the fixed resource memory size.

    I didn't ignore it and, in fact, gave you one example of what could use it.
    Which, of course, you snipped out just as you snipped out the other posters
    explanation that he not only used 768 Meg but had confirmed it and told HOW
    he had confirmed it.


    >>but he keeps insisting on claiming it won't work
    >
    >
    > I never claimed it wouldn't work, or cope, using your definition. In
    > fact I stated that in my opinion there might be exceptions.

    Your original statement was an unqualified claim that the original poster
    would NOT be able to use more than 512 Meg of RAM in Windows98 anyway.

    That is not true and you've been making an illogical stink about it ever since.

    >>with selective culling and misreading of the knowledge base articles.
    >
    >
    > Posting out of context here is an easy way for you to avoid facing the
    > reality of the knowledge base articles.

    That's knee slapping hilarious coming from you after YOUR snip jobs and
    selective quoting.

    > My reply was well-suited to the original poster (who as we now know does
    > not even use Windows 98). Just like the troll you chose to concur with,
    > you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

    Your reply to the original poster was simply incorrect, no matter how you
    try to spin it now.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    JS <JS@huh.wha> wrote:
    >David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in

    >> The issue was whether Windows98 could
    >> work with more than 512 Meg of RAM and the fact of the matter is it
    >> can, with a registry change.
    >
    >I have 768MBytes of ram and Win98SE and it works great.

    And some people will argue forever that Windows 98 is more stable than
    Windows XP. Everybody has an opinion.

    >... And yes, win98 will use all of this ram. I have verified this with
    >SysMon many times.

    I have used monitoring tools in Windows at all times since Windows 3.1,
    beginning over 10 years ago with what I recall as "cache mon" or
    something like that. System Monitor came along with Windows 95. The
    problem with using Windows 98 and Windows Millennium with more than
    512MB of RAM isn't just RAM, it's also limited resource memory for which
    there is no workaround. The problem is that the more programs you have
    open, the more resource memory they use (some programs use more than
    others), and the sooner a user of Windows 98 runs out of resource
    memory. There are likely exceptions I guess like when a user has few
    programs running at the same time and one of them uses a whole bunch of
    RAM.

    > Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum

    Windows NT and Windows 2000 were not designed for 512MB maximum.

    If that were true about Windows 9x, then most users would not run out of
    resource memory long before they use 512MB of RAM.

    <snipped rest of the beating of a dead horse straw man argument>
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >John Doe wrote:
    >> David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>>John Doe wrote:
    >>>>David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>>>>John Doe wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as
    >>>>>>to what that value should be.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>One of Microsoft's workarounds in that article is to remove all
    >>>>>>but 512MB of RAM.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>That's a misleading comment. Removing 'the problem' is always a
    >>>>>'workaround' (sic),
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>I think "sic" usually refers to the preceding word,
    >>>
    >>>Yes. Sure does.
    >>
    >>
    >> So what is wrong with the word "workaround"?
    >
    >Should have asked that the first time instead of trying to be 'cute'.

    I was trying to translate your usage of "sic".

    >>>>Google shows 647,000 English messages for "workaround" including
    >>>>your usage a few posts ago.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>but you leave out the fact they first describe precisely the
    >>>>>solution I stated: limiting vcache to under 512 Meg in system.ini.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>I hereby plainly state and acknowledge that is another workaround.
    >>>
    >>>That really settles it, you know. The question was whether windows98
    >>>could work with more than 512 Meg of RAM. Workaround 1: yes. The rest
    >>>is moot.
    >>
    >>
    >> You are claiming that because one of the problems is solved (in your
    >> opinion),
    >
    >Not my 'opinion'. It's Microsoft who says it solves the 512 Meg
    >boundary problem.

    Microsoft says it is a workaround.

    >> Windows 98 works with more than 512MB of RAM. I disagree.
    >
    >It's not a matter of 'opinion'. The knowledge base article says it
    >fixes the 512 meg problem.

    The knowledge base article shows how to cope with more than 512MB of RAM
    and Windows 98.

    >>>>A third workaround is to "Use the System Configuration utility to
    >>>>limit the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512MB or less." That
    >>>>workaround is actually listed second in the first article, but it's
    >>>>the third mentioned here in this current thread.
    >>>>
    >>>>Two out of three workarounds listed on that page make more than
    >>>>512MB of memory completely unusable.
    >>>
    >>>That there are 2, or a thousand, ways to have it not work is
    >>>irrelevant as it's not a 'vote'. One working solution is all it
    >>>takes.
    >>
    >>
    >> If it were a working solution to the one problem you think is all
    >> there is to making Windows 98 work with 512MB of RAM, then why are
    >> the other solutions listed? You admit that removing the extra memory
    >> is the most difficult solution, so what's the purpose of listing that
    >> solution?
    >
    >I've already explained that.
    >
    >
    >>>>Those two are the second and third workarounds.
    >>>
    >>>Since the point of having more than 512 Meg of RAM is to use more
    >>>than 512 Meg of RAM I don't consider those to be 'workarounds',
    >>>regardless of Microsoft calling them such, and is why I placed the
    >>>"(sic)" after the term up above.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I can see that the
    >>>>workaround you like is on top.
    >>>
    >>>The issue was whether Windows98 could be made to work with more than
    >>>512 Meg of RAM and I "like" it because it satisfies the goal.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>However, the article says "use one of the
    >>>>following methods" and does not even hint that the workarounds are
    >>>>arranged in order of priority.
    >>>
    >>>It doesn't need to 'hint'. In the first place, that's standard
    >>>practice and, in the second, it's the one that accomplishes the goal.
    >>>That's how I pick solutions.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Looks like there was a 33% chance that any
    >>>>of those three workarounds could have ended up being the first.
    >>>
    >>>No, the logic of the order is obvious. The first one solves the
    >>>problem,
    >>
    >>
    >> In your opinion, that solves one of the problems
    >
    >It is not my 'opinion'. The knowledge base article flat out gives it as
    >a solution to THE problem with 512 Meg RAM.

    It is a workaround for one problem.

    >> with making Windows 98 work with more than 512MB of RAM. If it were a
    >> worthwhile solution to one of the problems, someone would figure out
    >> exactly what that value should be.
    >
    >The rest of that sentence is just absurd illogic.

    Troll.

    >>>making the extra RAM usable, but requires a registry edit: a thing
    >>>that some people are reluctant to do so some alternatives for the
    >>>squeamish are in order. The second one is simply checking a box and
    >>>typing in a number: simple, easy, and 'safe' but it renders the extra
    >>>RAM unusable and, while you can do it 'right away', it's silly to
    >>>leave the unused RAM in the box forever. The third one requires
    >>>opening the box and messing with the hardware.
    >>
    >>
    >> That's nice, but taking the checkbox to limit usable memory is a
    >> whole lot easier than removing the RAM.
    >
    >Which is why it's number 2.

    Leaving RAM sitting in the system is a good thing, in your opinion?

    >>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>Microsoft's workaround in that article is to remove all but 512MB
    >>>>>>of RAM.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>For one, it's specific to motherboards with shared memory video
    >>>>>and, second, I'd suggest they say 512 Meg to avoid making the
    >>>>>description unnecessarily long by repeating the other note about
    >>>>>limiting vcache.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>I'm glad you provided the references.
    >>>
    >>>You are, no doubt, thanking me for the second link
    >>
    >>
    >> No, I was thanking you for providing the references.
    >
    >Whatever.
    >
    >
    >>>>>Or else the title would be "Blue Screen Appears When You Start
    >>>>>Computer with '512 MB' or More of RAM" rather than "Blue Screen
    >>>>>Appears When You Start Computer with 1 GB or More of RAM." 512 Meg
    >>>>>is the 'works here without further explanation required' solution.
    >>>>
    >>>>Yes, it certainly is a mess.
    >>>
    >>>Hardly.
    >>
    >>
    >> It is a big fat mass.
    >
    >ONly to those who can't read.

    Troll.

    >>>>The first article explicitly states:
    >>>>"CAUSE ... Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle 1 GB
    >>>>or more of RAM. 1 GB or more of RAM can lead to potential system
    >>>>instability."
    >>>
    >>>You'll notice that 1 GB is not the amount of memory the other poster
    >>>was considering.
    >>
    >>
    >> I also know that 1GB is more than 512MB, that the original poster is
    >> using Windows XP, and that the original poster can install and remove
    >> RAM.
    >
    >Good. So you know the second link has nothing to do with the amount of
    >RAM under discussion.

    None of your argument has to do with the operating system under
    discussion.

    >>>>That statement has nothing to do with shared memory.
    >>>
    >>>Try reading the whole thing instead of culling a phrase or two here
    >>>and there like you did the last time.
    >>
    >>
    >> It's an entire paragraph, it's an entire section, it is the whole
    >> section under the bold print uppercase word "CAUSE".
    >
    >Which is not the whole thing.

    And?

    >>>>>>If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft
    >>>>>>wouldn't be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB
    >>>>>>of RAM.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Two problems with that conclusion. The first is, no, recommending
    >>>>>it be removed to fix an otherwise unfixable problem doesn't suggest
    >>>>>more than 512 Meg isn't 'useful', if it would WORK, and it would be
    >>>>>a heck of a lot easier for MS to simply say so rather than provide
    >>>>>a workaround in the first article.
    >>>>
    >>>>Some sellers could not care less, wouldn't know better, and would
    >>>>gladly install whatever the mainboard can handle.
    >>
    >>
    >>>... there is a workaround for using [more than 512MB of RAM].
    >>
    >>
    >> There are at least two workarounds for allowing the extra memory to
    >> remain in the system.
    >
    >The objective is not to simply 'leave RAM in the system'.

    Two out of three workarounds disagree.

    >> One of them is an obscure suggestion to limit vCatch memory.
    >
    >If you don't understand it just say so but it isn't 'obscure' to the
    >rest of us.

    I understand it just fine.

    >> The other is to easily disable the extra memory.
    >
    >Which is a rather stupid thing to do: install RAM and then disable it.
    >But if that's your ''pick' then so be it.

    It's not my idea.

    >>>If it just plain didn't work or only worked, as you imply, 1/3 of the
    >>>time it would be a lot less pain and misery for MS to simply say
    >>>"don't do it."
    >>
    >>
    >> Less pain for Microsoft's customers to know that Windows 98 and
    >> Millennium can use only 512MB of RAM?
    >
    >Yes, it would be, if it were true. The fact that there's a solution
    >provided is proof that it isn't.

    A workaround for one of the problems.

    >> I agree, that's one reason the rest of us are here.
    >
    >What? To pass out faulty information, like you did, that Windows98
    >can't work with more than 512 MEg of RAM?

    That is your straw man.

    >>>>In my opinion, it wouldn't be easier.
    >>>
    >>>In my opinion that's an opinion derived simply for the sake of
    >>>arguing.
    >>
    >>
    >> Isn't that what you're doing? My reply was apt, directed towards the
    >> original poster, yours was supporting a troll.
    >
    >I posted the fact that Windows98 can work with more than 512 Meg of
    >RAM, how it can be done, and the link to prove it.

    You posted a workaround for one problem, the only problem you recognize.

    >And you've been misrepresenting the facts ever since.

    Which facts have I misrepresented in your opinion? You have ample
    opportunity to dispute the facts.

    >> You think using Windows 98 with more than 512MB of RAM is a good
    >> idea. I don't.
    >
    >I didn't say a thing about whether it was a 'good idea' or not.

    So you agree that it's a bad idea for most users?

    >I simply pointed out you are wrong when you say Windows98 can't work
    >with more than 512 Meg of RAM.

    That is your straw man.

    >> Your conclusion is based on what you believe is a solution to one
    >> part of the problem.
    >
    >Being able to read plain English when MS publishes a solution is not a
    >'belief' on my part.

    Ignoring the rest of the story is one of your solutions.

    >> In my experience, that solution is fishy.
    >
    >But you haven't provided ONE thing to suggest that comment.

    Anyone who is very technically inclined should know that.

    >>>>>And the second problem is that Microsoft is not, as you
    >>>>>claim, "explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of
    >>>>>RAM." It only looks that way with your selective ignoring of the
    >>>>>top listed solution in the first article, limit vcache to 512 MB,
    >>>>>and ignoring the specific hardware configuration, shared RAM video,
    >>>>>that potentially conflicts with 1 GB in the second.
    >>>>
    >>>>Two of three solutions in the first article are to disable or remove
    >>>>the extra memory. The only solution mentioned in the second article
    >>>>is to remove the extra memory. Shared video memory is mentioned in
    >>>>the first article as well, and that includes memory used by AGP
    >>>>video cards.
    >>>
    >>>No, "shared video memory" is a specific term and does not 'include'
    >>>AGP.
    >>
    >>
    >> From the article:
    >> "This problem may occur more readily with Advanced Graphics Port
    >> (AGP) video adapters because the AGP aperture is also mapped to
    >> addresses in the system arena."
    >
    >That is NOT from the "1 gigabyte (GB) or more of random access memory
    >(RAM) with shared video memory" article.

    It doesn't have to be.

    >> That supports my point that it is a widespread problem, especially
    >> nowadays.
    >
    >All it 'supports' is that you can't tell one article from another and
    >can't tell the difference between 512 Meg, 1 Gig, and 1.5 Gig of RAM.

    Troll.

    >>>>Resource memory is fixed in Windows 98 and Millennium, regardless of
    >>>>RAM quantity, and most Windows 98 users are going to run into
    >>>>problems before using 512MB of system memory. Windows 98 and
    >>>>Millennium were not designed for more than 512MB of RAM.
    >>>
    >>>The issue was not 'most users', 'typical users', or what you, or I,
    >>>think are the apps they should be using.
    >>
    >>
    >> It is in the context of my post to which you took offense.
    >
    >I didn't 'take offense' at your initial post. I corrected the incorrect
    >information in it.

    That is your straw man. Even after I immediately provided you with an
    explanation, you persist to pretend I was talking about only one
    problem, apparently the only problem you're familiar with.

    >>>The issue was whether Windows98 could work with more than 512 Meg of
    >>>RAM and the fact of the matter is it can, with a registry change.
    >>
    >>
    >> I guess that is semantics on the word "work".
    >
    >Only on your end.

    Apparently you think that your first interpretation of what someone says
    is the final word.

    >> I certainly agree that Windows 98 and Millennium can cope with more
    >> than 512MB of RAM installed on the mainboard.
    >
    >'Cope'... semantics.

    How so?

    >It works.

    In your opinion.

    >> But since the original poster (again assuming that he were using
    >> Windows 98) can install and remove RAM, there is little or no reason
    >> for him to leave the extra memory.
    >
    >Unless he wants to use it. And the 512 Meg article shows one how.

    It provides a workaround for one problem. It also says that one should
    either disable it or uninstall it. That's not very supportive for the
    idea that it is useful.


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Path: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!news.glorb.com!postnews1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
    >From: David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    >Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
    >Subject: Re: Ram: more vs. speed?
    >Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 04:56:09 -0600
    >Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
    >Message-ID: <10oepultjdch818@corp.supernews.com>
    >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
    >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    >MIME-Version: 1.0
    >References: <tL%gd.109863$Ot3.59278@twister.nyc.rr.com> <Xns95931401AB0CEwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <hivao05q81aijqgdg3a2rbfotobrjc3lth@4ax.com> <Xns9593BD776B575wisdomfolly@151.164.30.42> <10ob5b6ohrplp0e@corp.supernews.com> <Xns9593D580125B3wisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <10oc345sig1pg38@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95943618F24CDwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <10oc8uojmkbcla4@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95944C098127Fwisdomfolly@151.164.30.42> <10ock05gnppbqfe@corp.supernews.com> <Xns959571F0A4Ewisdomfolly@151.164.30.42>
    >In-Reply-To: <Xns959571F0A4Ewisdomfolly@151.164.30.42>
    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
    >Lines: 341
    >Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:420966
    >
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >John Doe wrote:
    >
    >> David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>... Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does need to
    >>>>be setup properly.
    >>>
    >>>Yes.
    >>
    >>
    >> Says who?
    >>
    >> What you have been telling me is that what you believe is a solution
    >> to one problem is the solution to the whole problem with making
    >> Windows 98 work with more than 512MB of RAM,
    >
    >The 'one problem' is the 'problem' that was under discussion.

    Have you ever heard of the fixed resource problem? I've mentioned it
    several times in this thread with you. You seem to ignore it and pretend
    that the solution to the problem you are familiar with is the solution
    to the whole problem.

    >> while you completely ignore other problems like the fixed resource
    >> memory size.
    >
    >I didn't ignore it and, in fact, gave you one example of what could use
    >it.

    Of what could use it?

    Resource memory in Windows 9x is fixed. In order to use a lot of RAM,
    like 512MB, one usually runs a lot of programs. But if you run a lot of
    programs, you eat up resource memory. For the vast majority of users,
    resource memory will be gone long before they use 512MB of RAM. There
    might be exceptions, for example, a Photoshop user might be willing to
    run a few additional programs because he or she seriously needs to use
    Photoshop and Windows 9x. In my last years with Windows 9x, I was
    often running up against the fixed resource memory problem.

    http://tinyurl.com/598b9
    http://tinyurl.com/4kc6x

    Those two links might help explain what I'm talking about.

    >Which, of course, you snipped out just as you snipped out the other
    >posters explanation that he not only used 768 Meg but had confirmed it
    >and told HOW he had confirmed it.

    I plainly stated that there might be exceptions. On Usenet, if there is
    an exception, it will find you.

    >>>but he keeps insisting on claiming it won't work
    >>
    >>
    >> I never claimed it wouldn't work, or cope, using your definition. In
    >> fact I stated that in my opinion there might be exceptions.
    >
    >Your original statement was an unqualified claim that the original
    >poster would NOT be able to use more than 512 Meg of RAM in Windows98
    >anyway.
    >
    >That is not true and you've been making an illogical stink about it
    >ever since.

    You simply refuse to listen to what I'm saying.

    You wrote:
    >The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'

    I immediately explained that there is more to it, but you cling to your
    original interpretation and completely ignore my argument.

    >>>with selective culling and misreading of the knowledge base articles.
    >>
    >>
    >> Posting out of context here is an easy way for you to avoid facing
    >> the reality of the knowledge base articles.
    >
    >That's knee slapping hilarious coming from you after YOUR snip jobs and
    >selective quoting.

    I just try to snip the useless stuff.

    >> My reply was well-suited to the original poster (who as we now know
    >> does not even use Windows 98). Just like the troll you chose to
    >> concur with, you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.
    >
    >Your reply to the original poster was simply incorrect, no matter how
    >you try to spin it now.

    I have been trying to explain ever since you asked.


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Path: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!news.glorb.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
    >From: David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    >Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
    >Subject: Re: Ram: more vs. speed?
    >Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 05:06:36 -0600
    >Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
    >Message-ID: <10oeqi5b7selpa5@corp.supernews.com>
    >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
    >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    >MIME-Version: 1.0
    >References: <tL%gd.109863$Ot3.59278@twister.nyc.rr.com> <Xns95931401AB0CEwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <hivao05q81aijqgdg3a2rbfotobrjc3lth@4ax.com> <Xns9593BD776B575wisdomfolly@151.164.30.42> <10ob5b6ohrplp0e@corp.supernews.com> <Xns9593D580125B3wisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <10oc345sig1pg38@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95943618F24CDwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <10oc8uojmkbcla4@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95944C098127Fwisdomfolly@151.164.30.42> <10ock05gnppbqfe@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95949B09E8BEFDQ1V66HO78NX3AGH5MJX@127.0.0.1> <10odvmqr78dvpea@corp.supernews.com> <Xns9595E9D145FBwisdomfolly@151.164.30.44>
    >In-Reply-To: <Xns9595E9D145FBwisdomfolly@151.164.30.44>
    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
    >Lines: 63
    >Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:420967
    >
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe wrote:

    <snip of asinine gibberish>

    Summary: You were wrong to say "If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium,
    then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."

    Windows98 or Millennium can use more than 512MB with the vcache registry
    change.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe wrote:

    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >>John Doe wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>... Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does need to
    >>>>>be setup properly.
    >>>>
    >>>>Yes.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Says who?
    >>>
    >>>What you have been telling me is that what you believe is a solution
    >>>to one problem is the solution to the whole problem with making
    >>>Windows 98 work with more than 512MB of RAM,
    >>
    >>The 'one problem' is the 'problem' that was under discussion.
    >
    >
    > Have you ever heard of the fixed resource problem? I've mentioned it
    > several times in this thread with you. You seem to ignore it and pretend
    > that the solution to the problem you are familiar with is the solution
    > to the whole problem.

    I am well aware of the "fixed resource" problem but it has nothing to do
    with 512 Meg of RAM. It can occur with less RAM and it might not occur with
    more RAM; it depends on the applications, their memory usage and the
    resources they consume.


    >>>while you completely ignore other problems like the fixed resource
    >>>memory size.
    >>
    >>I didn't ignore it and, in fact, gave you one example of what could use
    >>it.
    >
    >
    > Of what could use it?

    Yes.

    >
    > Resource memory in Windows 9x is fixed. In order to use a lot of RAM,
    > like 512MB, one usually runs a lot of programs.

    I want to see your poll numbers on what is 'usual' for using 512 Meg of RAM
    in a Windows98 system.

    Not that it matter because I already gave you one example.

    > But if you run a lot of
    > programs, you eat up resource memory. For the vast majority of users,
    > resource memory will be gone long before they use 512MB of RAM.

    Which, even if true, is irrelevant to your 'absolute' statement. You didn't
    say "if he's a typical user" or "it's unlikely" or any other 'vast
    majority' qualifier. You simple said, nope, won't be able to use it.

    > There
    > might be exceptions, for example, a Photoshop user might be willing to
    > run a few additional programs because he or she seriously needs to use
    > Photoshop and Windows 9x.

    Which proves that your original absolute statement "If he is using Windows
    98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway" is
    false because you have no idea what he might care to run on the machine.

    > In my last years with Windows 9x, I was
    > often running up against the fixed resource memory problem.
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/598b9
    > http://tinyurl.com/4kc6x
    >
    > Those two links might help explain what I'm talking about.

    I already know what you're talking about. What you can't seem to figure out
    is simply because the apps YOU ran hit the limit doesn't mean that NO ONE
    can use more than 512 Meg, which you fallaciously assume every time you
    just wildly, with no explanation of what you mean by it or knowledge of
    what someone else might intend to run, throw out the absolute declaration
    that "If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use
    more than 512MB anyway."


    >>Which, of course, you snipped out just as you snipped out the other
    >>posters explanation that he not only used 768 Meg but had confirmed it
    >>and told HOW he had confirmed it.
    >
    >
    > I plainly stated that there might be exceptions. On Usenet, if there is
    > an exception, it will find you.

    You did not make an 'exception' when you posted "If he is using Windows 98
    or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."

    I pointed out that it *was* possible to use more than 512 Meg of RAM.

    You now acknowledge 'there are exceptions', meaning my statement is true,
    so what the hell are you arguing about?


    >>>>but he keeps insisting on claiming it won't work
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>I never claimed it wouldn't work, or cope, using your definition. In
    >>>fact I stated that in my opinion there might be exceptions.
    >>
    >>Your original statement was an unqualified claim that the original
    >>poster would NOT be able to use more than 512 Meg of RAM in Windows98
    >>anyway.
    >>
    >>That is not true and you've been making an illogical stink about it
    >>ever since.
    >
    >
    > You simply refuse to listen to what I'm saying.

    I've heard every illogical word of it.

    > You wrote:
    >
    >>The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'
    >
    >
    > I immediately explained that there is more to it,

    No, you immediately tried to claim it wasn't so because there were '2 other
    workarounds' that involved disabling or removing the extra RAM and then
    went into a song and dance about Microsoft 'emphatically telling the whole
    word to not use more than 512 Meg of RAM'. Neither of which make any sense.

    > but you cling to your
    > original interpretation and completely ignore my argument.

    I answered that argument the first time you brought it up and every time
    since.

    >>>>with selective culling and misreading of the knowledge base articles.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Posting out of context here is an easy way for you to avoid facing
    >>>the reality of the knowledge base articles.
    >>
    >>That's knee slapping hilarious coming from you after YOUR snip jobs and
    >>selective quoting.
    >
    >
    > I just try to snip the useless stuff.

    Hardy har har.


    >>>My reply was well-suited to the original poster (who as we now know
    >>>does not even use Windows 98). Just like the troll you chose to
    >>>concur with, you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.
    >>
    >>Your reply to the original poster was simply incorrect, no matter how
    >>you try to spin it now.
    >
    >
    > I have been trying to explain ever since you asked.

    I didn't 'ask' anything. Your original post was incorrect, period.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >John Doe wrote:
    >
    ><snip of asinine gibberish>
    >
    >Summary: You were wrong to say "If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium,
    >then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."

    I disagree.

    >Windows98 or Millennium can use more than 512MB with the vcache registry
    >change.

    For most people using Windows 98 or Millennium, I would call it coping with
    more than 512MB of memory.


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!
    prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!news.glorb.com!sn-xit-
    04!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-08!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!
    corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
    >From: David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    >Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
    >Subject: Re: Ram: more vs. speed?
    >Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:09:11 -0600
    >Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
    >Message-ID: <10ogq01e8k1i95d@corp.supernews.com>
    >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4)
    Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
    >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    >MIME-Version: 1.0
    >References: <tL%gd.109863$Ot3.59278@twister.nyc.rr.com>
    <Xns95931401AB0CEwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48>
    <hivao05q81aijqgdg3a2rbfotobrjc3lth@4ax.com> <Xns9593BD776B575wisdomfolly@
    151.164.30.42> <10ob5b6ohrplp0e@corp.supernews.com>
    <Xns9593D580125B3wisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <10oc345sig1pg38
    @corp.supernews.com> <Xns95943618F24CDwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48>
    <10oc8uojmkbcla4@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95944C098127Fwisdomfolly@
    151.164.30.42> <10ock05gnppbqfe@corp.supernews.com>
    <Xns959571F0A4Ewisdomfolly@151.164.30.42> <10oepultjdch818
    @corp.supernews.com> <Xns95955212F4B46wisdomfolly@151.164.30.44>
    >In-Reply-To: <Xns95955212F4B46wisdomfolly@151.164.30.44>
    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
    >Lines: 10
    >Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:421001
    >
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe wrote:

    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >>John Doe wrote:
    >>
    >><snip of asinine gibberish>
    >>
    >>Summary: You were wrong to say "If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium,
    >>then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."
    >
    >
    > I disagree.

    I have it on the authority of an expert named "John Doe" that there are
    indeed programs one can use with Windows98 that can use more than 512 Meg
    of RAM.

    That means you're wrong.


    >>Windows98 or Millennium can use more than 512MB with the vcache registry
    >>change.
    >
    >
    > For most people using Windows 98 or Millennium, I would call it coping with
    > more than 512MB of memory.

    The statement in dispute does not say anything about "for most people." It
    makes an absolute declaration for ALL people under ALL circumstances and
    is, therefor, incorrect.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >John Doe wrote:
    >>David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>>John Doe wrote:
    >>>>David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

    ....

    >I am well aware of the "fixed resource" problem but it has nothing to
    >do with 512 Meg of RAM.

    Sure it does, for the vast majority of users.

    Typically, using more memory means you are running more programs.
    Running more programs means you're using more resources. The typical
    user is going to run out of resources before he (or she) uses 512MB of
    RAM in Windows 98 or Millennium.

    Windows 98 and Millennium just weren't designed for more than 512MB of
    memory. That's what Windows NT and Windows 2000 were designed for.

    >It can occur with less RAM and it might not occur with
    >more RAM; it depends on the applications, their memory usage and the
    >resources they consume.

    Applications typically consume a greater percentage of fixed resources
    than they consume of 512MB of RAM. That is my point which you have
    inadvertently supported in prior posts.

    >> Resource memory in Windows 9x is fixed. In order to use a lot of RAM,
    >> like 512MB, one usually runs a lot of programs.
    >
    >I want to see your poll

    Let's take a look at what you were saying in July of 2004.

    David Maynard wrote:
    >Except 128 Meg of RAM is quite nice on Win98SE.

    http://tinyurl.com/4o9bq
    Message-ID: <10efbg0mks36m9d@corp.supernews.com>

    David Maynard wrote:
    > ... with 128 meg you're in hog heaven, as long as you don't get too
    > piggish about it.
    > And by that I mean it isn't a 'power user' office system; just
    > relatively mild work use as opposed to some hair-on-fire yahoo editing
    > 3 manuals, replete with embedded pictures, charts, and graphs, while
    > working with 3 excel spreadsheets, photoshop, a powerpoint
    > presentation and updating his MS project schedule as he checks meeting
    > times in Outlook to see if he's gonna make it.

    http://tinyurl.com/53jzt
    Message-ID: <10ekdm7qfivg53e@corp.supernews.com>

    I guarantee you that if you have the programs you yourself listed right
    there open in Windows 98, you'll run out of system resources or at least
    come very close. And that in your head was easily doable with 128MB of
    RAM, while we are now talking about four times that amount.

    >> But if you run a lot of programs, you eat up resource memory. For the
    >> vast majority of users, resource memory will be gone long before they
    >> use 512MB of RAM.
    >
    >Which, even if true, is irrelevant to your 'absolute' statement. You
    >didn't say "if he's a typical user" or "it's unlikely" or any other
    >'vast majority' qualifier. You simple said, nope, won't be able to use
    >it.

    It won't be the last time because I don't have time to explain
    everything, so sometimes I use generalizations. I appreciate the
    opportunity to elaborate.

    >> There might be exceptions, for example, a Photoshop user might be
    >> willing to run a few additional programs because he or she seriously
    >> needs to use Photoshop and Windows 9x.
    >
    >Which proves that your original absolute statement

    It's not black-and-white.

    >"If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use
    >more than 512MB anyway" is false because you have no idea what he might
    >care to run on the machine.

    A few months ago, you said 128MB of RAM in Windows 98 was "hog heaven" for
    a typical user.

    What happened?

    >> In my last years with Windows 9x, I was
    >> often running up against the fixed resource memory problem.
    >> http://tinyurl.com/598b9
    >> http://tinyurl.com/4kc6x
    >> Those two links might help explain what I'm talking about.
    >
    >I already know what you're talking about. What you can't seem to figure
    >out is simply because the apps YOU ran hit the limit doesn't mean that
    >NO ONE can use more than 512 Meg, which you fallaciously assume every
    >time you just wildly, with no explanation of what you mean by it or
    >knowledge of what someone else might intend to run, throw out the
    >absolute declaration that "If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium,
    >then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."

    According to you, most Windows 98 users cannot even use 128MB.

    Personally, I think 256MB or 380MB is about right for a typical Windows
    98 or Millennium system.

    >You did not make an 'exception' when you posted "If he is using Windows
    >98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."
    >I pointed out that it *was* possible to use more than 512 Meg of RAM.

    Not without simultaneously running 20 FrontPage designs, 17 Excel
    spreadsheets, 300 Photoshop windows, and 150 PowerPoint presentations.

    Or something like that, I probably should leave the rhetoric to you.

    >You now acknowledge 'there are exceptions', meaning my statement is
    >true, so what the hell are you arguing about?

    What are you complaining about?

    >> You simply refuse to listen to what I'm saying.
    >
    >I've heard every illogical word of it.

    And now you've heard what you were saying.

    >> You wrote:
    >>
    >>>The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'
    >>
    >> I immediately explained that there is more to it,
    >
    >No,

    Yes, it's all there.

    >you immediately tried to claim it wasn't so because there were '2 other
    >workarounds' that involved disabling or removing the extra RAM

    That's your argument. I have been entertaining your argument because you
    have been ignoring mine.

    >and then went into a song and dance about Microsoft 'emphatically
    >telling the whole word to not use more than 512 Meg of RAM'. Neither of
    >which make any sense.

    That is misquote. If I were you, I would copy and paste.

    >Your original post was incorrect, period.

    Sounds like everything is black and white to you.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe wrote:

    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >>John Doe wrote:
    >>
    >>>David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>John Doe wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    > ...
    >
    >
    >>I am well aware of the "fixed resource" problem but it has nothing to
    >>do with 512 Meg of RAM.
    >
    >
    > Sure it does, for the vast majority of users.

    No, it doesn't. There is nothing 'special' about 512 Meg of RAM that is
    linked to the "fixed resource" issue. That can occur with less RAM, and
    more RAM.

    > Typically, using more memory means you are running more programs.
    > Running more programs means you're using more resources. The typical
    > user is going to run out of resources before he (or she) uses 512MB of
    > RAM in Windows 98 or Millennium.

    You just said "before" (512 Meg of RAM). That proves it has nothing to do
    with '512 Meg'.

    BUt we've already establishes that there ARE things that can use more than
    512 Meg of RAM. You, yourself, tossed out photoshop as one example. And it
    only takes '1' to make your absolute statement invalid.

    >
    > Windows 98 and Millennium just weren't designed for more than 512MB of
    > memory. That's what Windows NT and Windows 2000 were designed for.

    What you may think was in the mind of the 'designers' is irrelevant.


    >>It can occur with less RAM and it might not occur with
    >>more RAM; it depends on the applications, their memory usage and the
    >>resources they consume.
    >
    >
    > Applications typically consume a greater percentage of fixed resources
    > than they consume of 512MB of RAM. That is my point which you have
    > inadvertently supported in prior posts.

    Logical thought isn't your strong suit. Your original statement is an
    absolute but you, yourself, have given an example of an 'exception', as you
    call it.

    The two cannot both be true. It is impossible for "[the user] won't be able
    to use more than 512MB anyway" to be true along with photoshop being a
    program the user could use it with.

    So, tell me, in which one are you wrong?


    >>>Resource memory in Windows 9x is fixed. In order to use a lot of RAM,
    >>>like 512MB, one usually runs a lot of programs.
    >>
    >>I want to see your poll
    >
    >
    > Let's take a look at what you were saying in July of 2004.
    >
    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >>Except 128 Meg of RAM is quite nice on Win98SE.
    >
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/4o9bq
    > Message-ID: <10efbg0mks36m9d@corp.supernews.com>
    >
    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >>... with 128 meg you're in hog heaven, as long as you don't get too
    >>piggish about it.
    >>And by that I mean it isn't a 'power user' office system; just
    >>relatively mild work use as opposed to some hair-on-fire yahoo editing
    >>3 manuals, replete with embedded pictures, charts, and graphs, while
    >>working with 3 excel spreadsheets, photoshop, a powerpoint
    >>presentation and updating his MS project schedule as he checks meeting
    >>times in Outlook to see if he's gonna make it.
    >
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/53jzt
    > Message-ID: <10ekdm7qfivg53e@corp.supernews.com>
    >
    > I guarantee you that if you have the programs you yourself listed right
    > there open in Windows 98, you'll run out of system resources or at least
    > come very close. And that in your head was easily doable with 128MB of
    > RAM, while we are now talking about four times that amount.

    I am honored, but as much as I may regret doing so I feel that I must point
    out I, being only one person, do not constitute a 'poll' of 'most users'
    and obviously not a poll of users who use 512 Meg of RAM as I feel I'm in
    hog heaven with 128 Meg.


    >>>But if you run a lot of programs, you eat up resource memory. For the
    >>>vast majority of users, resource memory will be gone long before they
    >>>use 512MB of RAM.
    >>
    >>Which, even if true, is irrelevant to your 'absolute' statement. You
    >>didn't say "if he's a typical user" or "it's unlikely" or any other
    >>'vast majority' qualifier. You simple said, nope, won't be able to use
    >>it.
    >
    >
    > It won't be the last time because I don't have time to explain
    > everything, so sometimes I use generalizations. I appreciate the
    > opportunity to elaborate.
    >
    >
    >>>There might be exceptions, for example, a Photoshop user might be
    >>>willing to run a few additional programs because he or she seriously
    >>>needs to use Photoshop and Windows 9x.
    >>
    >>Which proves that your original absolute statement
    >
    >
    > It's not black-and-white.

    Oh yes it was. You made no 'exceptions', or explanation for that matter.


    >>"If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use
    >>more than 512MB anyway" is false because you have no idea what he might
    >>care to run on the machine.
    >
    >
    > A few months ago, you said 128MB of RAM in Windows 98 was "hog heaven" for
    > a typical user.
    >
    > What happened?

    Nothing happened. It's irrelevant. A non sequitur. That I may think 128 meg
    is "hog heaven" says absolutely nothing as to whether 512 Meg can be 'used'
    by someone else for whatever reason they may have. Maybe they're a bigger
    'hog' in need of a bigger 'heaven' than I am.


    >>>In my last years with Windows 9x, I was
    >>>often running up against the fixed resource memory problem.
    >>>http://tinyurl.com/598b9
    >>>http://tinyurl.com/4kc6x
    >>>Those two links might help explain what I'm talking about.
    >>
    >>I already know what you're talking about. What you can't seem to figure
    >>out is simply because the apps YOU ran hit the limit doesn't mean that
    >>NO ONE can use more than 512 Meg, which you fallaciously assume every
    >>time you just wildly, with no explanation of what you mean by it or
    >>knowledge of what someone else might intend to run, throw out the
    >>absolute declaration that "If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium,
    >>then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."
    >
    >
    > According to you, most Windows 98 users cannot even use 128MB.

    I never said any such thing.

    > Personally, I think 256MB or 380MB is about right for a typical Windows
    > 98 or Millennium system.

    That's nice.

    >>You did not make an 'exception' when you posted "If he is using Windows
    >>98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."
    >>I pointed out that it *was* possible to use more than 512 Meg of RAM.
    >
    >
    > Not without simultaneously running 20 FrontPage designs, 17 Excel
    > spreadsheets, 300 Photoshop windows, and 150 PowerPoint presentations.
    >
    > Or something like that, I probably should leave the rhetoric to you.

    I don't 'judge' the 'wackiness' of what someone wants to use their RAM for.

    >>You now acknowledge 'there are exceptions', meaning my statement is
    >>true, so what the hell are you arguing about?
    >
    > What are you complaining about?

    I'm 'complaining' about your contradictory and illogical arguments; and the
    fact that your original, absolute, claim is incorrect.

    >>>You simply refuse to listen to what I'm saying.
    >>
    >>I've heard every illogical word of it.
    >
    > And now you've heard what you were saying.

    Yes. I've heard you take what I said out of context and attempt to use it
    illogically as part of an irrational argument.


    >>>You wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'
    >>>
    >>>I immediately explained that there is more to it,
    >>
    >>No,
    >
    > Yes, it's all there.

    After you went mentally deranged on the MS knowledge base articles.

    >>you immediately tried to claim it wasn't so because there were '2 other
    >>workarounds' that involved disabling or removing the extra RAM
    >
    >
    > That's your argument. I have been entertaining your argument because you
    > have been ignoring mine.

    The '2 other workarounds' were never 'my argument' and if you think so you
    should check the floor because I think your brains must have fallen out.


    >>and then went into a song and dance about Microsoft 'emphatically
    >>telling the whole word to not use more than 512 Meg of RAM'. Neither of
    >>which make any sense.
    >
    >
    > That is misquote. If I were you, I would copy and paste.

    It wasn't a quote, which is why I used single quotes. It does, however,
    accurately convey the gist of what you said.

    >>Your original post was incorrect, period.
    >
    > Sounds like everything is black and white to you.

    Only when people make black and white statements like "won't be able to use
    more than 512MB anyway."
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >John Doe wrote:
    >> David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

    >>><snipped mostly drivel and trolling>

    >>>Your original post was incorrect, period.
    >>
    >> Sounds like everything is black and white to you.
    >
    >Only when people make black and white statements like "won't be able to
    >use more than 512MB anyway."

    I never said it was black-and-white. There was no emphasis in my
    statement. I explained immediately after you questioned me. But you
    never relinquished the hold on your original judgment of my statement
    even after I explained. It's like your interpretations are the law and
    not even the author can make a correction to what you have perceived as
    his meaning.


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!nerim.net!newsfeeds.phibee.net!nntp-server.pubsub.com!news.moat.net!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
    >From: David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    >Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
    >Subject: Re: Ram: more vs. speed?
    >Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 03:25:47 -0600
    >Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
    >Message-ID: <10oh917cvjmla5c@corp.supernews.com>
    >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
    >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    >MIME-Version: 1.0
    >References: <tL%gd.109863$Ot3.59278@twister.nyc.rr.com> <Xns95931401AB0CEwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <hivao05q81aijqgdg3a2rbfotobrjc3lth@4ax.com> <Xns9593BD776B575wisdomfolly@151.164.30.42> <10ob5b6ohrplp0e@corp.supernews.com> <Xns9593D580125B3wisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <10oc345sig1pg38@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95943618F24CDwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <10oc8uojmkbcla4@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95944C098127Fwisdomfolly@151.164.30.42> <10ock05gnppbqfe@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95949B09E8BEFDQ1V66HO78NX3AGH5MJX@127.0.0.1> <10odvmqr78dvpea@corp.supernews.com> <Xns9595E9D145FBwisdomfolly@151.164.30.44> <10oeqi5b7selpa5@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95955BAE2994Ewisdomfolly@151.164.30.44> <10ogrnlsbo6m4f9@corp.supernews.com> <Xns9596D6E668E3wisdomfolly@151.164.30.44>
    >In-Reply-To: <Xns9596D6E668E3wisdomfolly@151.164.30.44>
    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
    >Lines: 247
    >Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:421184
    >
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe wrote:

    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >>John Doe wrote:
    >>
    >>>David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>><snipped mostly drivel and trolling>
    >
    >
    >>>>Your original post was incorrect, period.
    >>>
    >>>Sounds like everything is black and white to you.
    >>
    >>Only when people make black and white statements like "won't be able to
    >>use more than 512MB anyway."
    >
    >
    > I never said it was black-and-white.

    I was simply describing your sentence; which is a plain, simple, no
    exceptions, statement: "you won't be able to..." It is, by it's nature,
    "black-and-white."

    > There was no emphasis in my
    > statement.

    Whether you whispered it under your breath or made a 40 foot flashing neon
    sign doesn't matter to the meaning.

    > I explained immediately after you questioned me. But you
    > never relinquished the hold on your original judgment of my statement
    > even after I explained.

    The first thing you did was to argue about the Microsoft workaround, saying
    it was "slightly off," and the 'logic' got progressively worse from there.
    I was simply responding to the arguments you presented.

    What you now say is 'the' explanation you first tossed in with what sounded
    like a side comment, saying "For what it's worth. Besides that bug,..."

    > It's like your interpretations are the law

    Oh come on. Just how many ways are there to interpret "won't be able to..."?

    > and
    > not even the author can make a correction to what you have perceived as
    > his meaning.

    You are quite right that there can be differences between the words someone
    uses visa vie what they meant to say and I have no problem with folks
    explaining themselves and/or clarifying things.

    What I do have a problem with is someone claiming that the new meaning, by
    way of 'explanation', and the old meaning, by way of the words, are the
    same thing when they're clearly not.

    Btw, I don't consider this an 'argument' but, rather, a discussion about
    logic.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Troll.

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

    >Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!sjc1.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
    >From: David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    >Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
    >Subject: Re: Ram: more vs. speed?
    >Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 11:39:50 -0600
    >Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
    >Message-ID: <10ovbricm459r91@corp.supernews.com>
    >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
    >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    >MIME-Version: 1.0
    >References: <tL%gd.109863$Ot3.59278@twister.nyc.rr.com> <Xns95931401AB0CEwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <hivao05q81aijqgdg3a2rbfotobrjc3lth@4ax.com> <Xns9593BD776B575wisdomfolly@151.164.30.42> <10ob5b6ohrplp0e@corp.supernews.com> <Xns9593D580125B3wisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <10oc345sig1pg38@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95943618F24CDwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48> <10oc8uojmkbcla4@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95944C098127Fwisdomfolly@151.164.30.42> <10ock05gnppbqfe@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95949B09E8BEFDQ1V66HO78NX3AGH5MJX@127.0.0.1> <10odvmqr78dvpea@corp.supernews.com> <Xns9595E9D145FBwisdomfolly@151.164.30.44> <10oeqi5b7selpa5@corp.supernews.com> <Xns95955BAE2994Ewisdomfolly@151.164.30.44> <10ogrnlsbo6m4f9@corp.supernews.com> <Xns9596D6E668E3wisdomfolly@151.164.30.44> <10oh917cvjmla5c@corp.supernews.com> <Xns959B3D52ED21Fwisdomfolly@151.164.30.44>
    >In-Reply-To: <Xns959B3D52ED21Fwisdomfolly@151.164.30.44>
    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
    >Lines: 63
    >Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:421383
    >
    >John Doe wrote:
    >
    >> David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>John Doe wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>><snipped mostly drivel and trolling>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>Your original post was incorrect, period.
    >>>>
    >>>>Sounds like everything is black and white to you.
    >>>
    >>>Only when people make black and white statements like "won't be able to
    >>>use more than 512MB anyway."
    >>
    >>
    >> I never said it was black-and-white.
    >
    >I was simply describing your sentence; which is a plain, simple, no
    >exceptions, statement: "you won't be able to..." It is, by it's nature,
    >"black-and-white."
    >
    >> There was no emphasis in my
    >> statement.
    >
    >Whether you whispered it under your breath or made a 40 foot flashing neon
    >sign doesn't matter to the meaning.
    >
    >> I explained immediately after you questioned me. But you
    >> never relinquished the hold on your original judgment of my statement
    >> even after I explained.
    >
    >The first thing you did was to argue about the Microsoft workaround, saying
    >it was "slightly off," and the 'logic' got progressively worse from there.
    >I was simply responding to the arguments you presented.
    >
    >What you now say is 'the' explanation you first tossed in with what sounded
    >like a side comment, saying "For what it's worth. Besides that bug,..."
    >
    >> It's like your interpretations are the law
    >
    >Oh come on. Just how many ways are there to interpret "won't be able to..."?
    >
    >> and
    >> not even the author can make a correction to what you have perceived as
    >> his meaning.
    >
    >You are quite right that there can be differences between the words someone
    >uses visa vie what they meant to say and I have no problem with folks
    >explaining themselves and/or clarifying things.
    >
    >What I do have a problem with is someone claiming that the new meaning, by
    >way of 'explanation', and the old meaning, by way of the words, are the
    >same thing when they're clearly not.
    >
    >Btw, I don't consider this an 'argument' but, rather, a discussion about
    >logic.
    >
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Hardware RAM Systems