Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (
More info?)
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Ron, I'm curious if you have an answer for this quandary--
>
> How do you install Win98 to a machine with, say, 2GB of RAM, without
> physically removing some of the RAM? Is there an easy way to get the
> needed entries into System.ini? Seems I used to know how to do this kind
> of thing, but my memory is an absolute sieve these days...
>
> Also, how can one alter a Windows Startup floppy disk to allow it to
> function decently with that much RAM--or is that an issue?
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
I too wanted to do that also since I triple boot, and getting with Ron &
Richard Harper a while ago going through every conceivable way they offered
even as an unlikely possibility, but I quickly fell in line with their
views and discovered for myself what they have always said is that there is
no uncompromised way of running 2GB in W2K/XP while then at the same time
booting to W98 and not have W98 fatal errors in one form or another.. ..and
I tried everything because I wanted to succeed, but it was not to be.
...Finally I decided afterall it's pretty easy to just unplug the extra
stick(s) of ram when I boot to 98 and so that's what I do. Naturally
wanting to stay with performance matched pairs of 512 DDR keeps me from
pursuing (what the few reported persons who were able to run the unmatched
scenario of) 1.5 GB in W98SE - although I tried that too in all ways, with
a few machines, but could not get it to run without one error or another
and was unstable as well.. So it's 1 GB for W98se is most stable; of
course an honorable mention is also having the hard drive connected to a
Promise Ultra133 TX2 PCI Controller which in my view is imperative to glean
the remarkable increase in overall performance it gives over than just
using any of the standard motherboard controllers. (..and I do mean
'remarkable' improvement, tested, especially when you start talking about
running 1.5 - 3.4 GHz processors) Alternately to the pci controller the
passé and limited Applications Accelerator do not match using a pci
controller benefits, of which benefits were also realized on W2K/WXP as
well. Afterall is one is going to mindfully consider more than 1GB of ram
with a modern GHz processor and has performance in mind, then the ability
to unleash that technology instead of bottle necking it is an easy decision
imho.
Rick
>
> "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:162lg1pa559eqb63rt12ms641eavkhd3q0@4ax.com...
>> "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>If you're dual booting XP, you may be cutting yourself short in the RAM
>>>area
>>>(if running memory intensive applications). Suggest another PC for
>>>that.
>>>
>>
>> If you are running Windows XP and Windows 98 (or Windows Me) dual boot
>> and you want to have lots of RAM for Windows XP then all you need to
>> do is to insert a MaxPhysPage=nnnnn line into the [386enh] section of
>> the system.ini file for Windows 98 so as to prevent it from trying to
>> use more than desired amount of RAM. MaxPhysPage=40000 will limit
>> Windows XP to 1 gb of RAM regardless of how much more than that is
>> actually installed.
>>
>> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
>> --
>> Microsoft MVP
>> On-Line Help Computer Service
>>
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>>
>> In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
>>
http://aumha.org/alex.htm
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram