memory upgrade already built pc

[Guest]

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

Hi,

I would like to replace the 256MB memory on my mobo with 1GB. I've never
done this on a PC that is already built. Can I just replace the memory, or
do need to start taking all my cards out first? Will this impact the OS
(dual boot Windows 98SE/XP)?

Regards,

Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Of course do like they said and unplug and all, but if you want to
really kick up your memory i'd suggest going somewhere like,
http://www.allcomponents.com/site/index.shtml and hitting their memory
configurator link so you can find your board and all that, then you can
optimize your memory and it will run your OS at top performance.
This all depends on what kind of memory slots your using and how many
ports you have to use as well.

 

[Guest]

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

Try the different manufacturers websites. They frequently have a
configuration tool to help you find the correct memory sticks based on
your motherboard model number or your system model number. Here's a few
links:

http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semiconductor/DRAM/
http://www.ocztechnology.com/
http://www.mushkin.com/epages/mushkin.storefront
http://www.legacyelectronics.com/
http://www.kingston.com/
http://www.gskill.com.tw/
http://www.geilusa.com/
http://www.crucial.com/
http://www.corsairmicro.com/

If you need information on your motherboard/system/memory try CPU-Z or
SiSoftware Sandra from here:

http://www.cpuid.com/
http://www.sisoftware.net/

As far as Win98SE is concerned, there are a couple of issues that I am
aware of:

1. The vcache (file cache) size
2. Large amounts of memory
3. Fast cpu's.

To deal with the vcache issue, edit your system.ini file to add the
following to the vcache section: (Try c:\windows\system.ini or wherever
you have 98 installed.)

[vcache]
MaxFileCache=524288
MinFileCache=40960
chunksize=4096

Add these lines if they are not there currently. This limits the vcache to
a maximum of 512MBytes of memory and deals with the issue very
effectively. Without the max limit set, 98 can sometimes allocate too much
system virtual memory address space to the vcache and cause problems. Some
people recommand that the MaxFileCache setting be no more than 70% of
physical memory up to a maximum of 512 MBytes. Others may recommend 80% or
so but you get the idea. You must set some maximum so that the vcache
cannot consume all your system virtual memory address space. I
experimented with the MinFileCache value and found 40MBytes to be a good
number. Smaller numbers seemed to slow my computer down, based on boot
times. Larger numbers did not seem to produce improvement, again based on
boot times. I left chunksize the way it was. You may want to 'tune' your
MinFileCache size as well. For more information try posting to:

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

Many experts there. Look for posts by MVP's.Found some Microsoft
documentation here:

About vcache issue:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=253912

I only have 768MBytes of ram so I have no experience with the large
amounts of memory isuue. Take look at:

"Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=184447

My cpu is only 733MHz so I have no experience with the fast cpu isuue.
Take look at:

Windows Protection Error in NDIS with a CPU That Is Faster Than 2.1 GHz
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;312108

general info sites:
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/

Regarding virtual memory:

I recommend leaving it set to auto. Let windows handle your virtual memory
settings completely automatically. Combine this with setting
'ConservativeSwapfileUsage' to 'one' in the [386en] section of the
system.ini file. This setting biases 98 to not use virtual memory if it
can avoid it. Since you will have lots of memory it may be able to run
without using virtual memory, most of the time, quite easily. This will
speed up your system since running from ram is faster than running from
vitual memory. Should your system ever need to use virtual memory it will
be able to do so and it will be able to adjust the virtual memory page
file size as required. I have found that most of the time my system page
file size is zero as reported by Sysmon. If I get hardcore and the system
needs virtual memory it can adjust without intervention from me. I
strongly recommend against turning off virtual memory. If your system ever
needs virtual memory and it is off, it may crash or lockup. There are
certain conditions where there must be virtual memory. Unfortunately I
cannot remember specifics right now. So add the following to your system.ini
file in the [386enh] section:

[386enh]
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

I have used 'ConservativeSwapfileUsage=0' as well and found that 98 will
create a page file when this is done. However, it seems to me that this
page file is not necessary most of the time since whenever it is set to
'ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1' the page file size is zero. These settings have
greatly improved my system's performance.


Good Luck

 

[Guest]

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

"Hackworth" <NoSpam4Me@spamless.net> wrote in
news:jKednXXMztpUriDcRVn-gw@comcast.com:

>
> Actually, Dave, I believe this is one of those old myths that just won't
> go away. Win 98 can't *cache* more than 512MB memory, but that is very
> different from being unable to "recognize" it.

This is true, sort of..., well... not really. Windows 98 doesn't cache
memory. Windows does have a virtual memory system but virtual memory and
cache are not the same. The CPU does cache memory and it can cache memory
from anywhere in the address space, hi, lo, or otherwise.

The problem is with vcache not memory cache. The vcache caches files from
the hard drive in ram so that when data from a file is requested it can be
retrieved from ram, which is fast relative to hard drive, instead going to
the hard drive, which is slow relative to ram. The issue is that
Windows98 can run into problems with a vcache (file cache not memory
cache) size greater than 512 MBytes or so. For more info, see my other
reply in this thread.

 

[Guest]

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

Thank you all for your excellent comments, they have been very helpful.
Thanks John for your pointers and info, they go a long way in helping
understand this.

Regards,

Michael

 

[Hackworth]

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

"John Smithe" <JS@Huh.Wha> wrote in message
news:Xns95BE272592EDEDQ1V55H078NX3AGH5MJX@127.0.0.1...
> "Hackworth" <NoSpam4Me@spamless.net> wrote in
> news:jKednXXMztpUriDcRVn-gw@comcast.com:
>
>>
>> Actually, Dave, I believe this is one of those old myths that just won't
>> go away. Win 98 can't *cache* more than 512MB memory, but that is very
>> different from being unable to "recognize" it.
>
> This is true, sort of..., well... not really. Windows 98 doesn't cache
> memory. Windows does have a virtual memory system but virtual memory and
> cache are not the same. The CPU does cache memory and it can cache memory
> from anywhere in the address space, hi, lo, or otherwise.
>
> The problem is with vcache not memory cache. The vcache caches files from
> the hard drive in ram so that when data from a file is requested it can be
> retrieved from ram, which is fast relative to hard drive, instead going to
> the hard drive, which is slow relative to ram. The issue is that
> Windows98 can run into problems with a vcache (file cache not memory
> cache) size greater than 512 MBytes or so. For more info, see my other
> reply in this thread.

Oh, I see what what you're saying. Yeah, I do believe I recall hearing of
folks who had more than 512MB and were required to twak their vcache
settings to get Win 98 to play nicely with the additional memory. As for
myself, I didn't have more than 512MB back then so I never had to mess with
it. After all, 512MB ought to be enough for anybody.... ;-)

 

[Guest]

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

Win 98SE can ONLY use up to 512 MB of RAM or you'll get system instability
and errors.

--
DaveW



"who" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:3oNud.69365$K7.2902@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Hi,
>
> I would like to replace the 256MB memory on my mobo with 1GB. I've never
> done this on a PC that is already built. Can I just replace the memory, or
> do need to start taking all my cards out first? Will this impact the OS
> (dual boot Windows 98SE/XP)?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Dave, this has already been discussed in the thread. Is there something you
wanted to add to elaborate on your comments in disagreement to the preveious
posts?

Regards,

Michael

"DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
news:IvLvd.570911$D%.332691@attbi_s51...
> Win 98SE can ONLY use up to 512 MB of RAM or you'll get system instability
> and errors.
>
> --
> DaveW

 

[Guest]

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

Hi all,

Thanks again for your assistance. Instead of the 1GB, I decided to go with
768 MB RAM (already had the 256 MB sticks) to save some money since I was
upgrading for two PC's.

I implemented John's suggestions to the system.ini file in W98SE and
everything works fine. Here are the details for both mobo's:

mobo: GA-8IR533
RAM: 512 MB (double sided DIMM, 8 banks per side)
256 MB (double sided DIMM, 8 banks per side)
OS: Dual boot Windows 98 SE and Linux

mobo: GA-8SG800
RAM: 512 MB (double sided, 8 banks per side)
256 MB (single sided, 8 banks per side)
OS: Dual boot Windows 98 SE and Windows XP

Regards,

Michael