512MB too much for 98SE?

[roblap]

With the prices of SDRAM falling to ridiculous lows, I picked up a second 256MB DIMM from Crucial identical to the one I already had in my system which has been working pretty flawlessly for months.
ABIT KT7-RAID
1GHz Thuderbird
Originally had 1 256MB stick of PC133 CAS2 from Crucial.
Windows98SE

When I placed the second identical stick into the second slot and booted, the memory counted up to 500million and change and everything looked good. After logging on and getting to the desktop, immediately a blue screen pops up saying that my system memory was VERY LOW and Norton Auto protect would likely not be able to run. Other programs also would hang or not start at all.

System Resource meter says I'm 66% free. All indications are that Windows recognizes the 512MB. I manage my own swap file to be 512MB. I set the timings of the two banks to be identical in the BIOS. I tried both the new and old RAM DIMMS alone in the system and they each work fine alone.

What am I missing? Is there a setting in windows to "enable" the entire 512MB? I know that there may be a problem with WIN98 and >512MB, but I thought 512MB was OK.

Thanks
Rob

 

[Ed_Phoon]

I have two system, one PIII 1000mhz 512mb ram with Win98SE and Red Hat Linux 7.0, the other is Athlon TB 1333mhz 512mb ram with Win98SE only, both running fine.
Try to set your memory timing slower.
This problem can also cause by power supply, do you have a good power supply in your system? ( ie 3.3v and 5v combine max output = 150w or more)

 

[roblap]

Thank you for replying,
I tried setting the memory timings to the BIOS defaults (EVERYTHING slow) and that didn't change the behavior.

Also, I had just upgraded my 300W Sparkle PS to a new 431W Enermax.

It has been over 10 months on my current installation and I have been wrestling with an intermittant freezing problem that was occurring prior to even messing with the RAM. It may be time to wipe the system clean and restart from scratch.

Any other ideas before I do something drastic as that?

 

[girish]

512 MB is just about enough.

dont go above 512.

<font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>

 

[btvillarin]

FYI: System Resources has nothing to do with RAM. Read Fred Langa's 4 part article entitled "Resource Leaks" to this. <A HREF="http://content.techweb.com/winmag/columns/explorer/backissu.htm" target="_new">Fred Langa's Winmag Back Issues</A>

Anyways, <A HREF="http://www.outertech.com" target="_new">Cacheman</A> should relieve this problem.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=13406" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[roblap]

Well I checked out Norton's page and sure enough there was a post from someone else with the same error message I was getting. They pointed me to the Microsoft Knowledge base article saying Win98 VCACHE has a problem with RAM in excess of 512MB...but I don't have MORE than 512, I have 512!

Anyway, I will tinker with VCACHE sizes and see if that helps.
Thanks
Rob

 

[btvillarin]

I'm sorry that I didn't emphasize this, but <A HREF="http://www.outertech.com" target="_new">Cacheman</A> does this for you and more with a series of wizards. Download it already...(it's quality <b>freeware</b> - is that good enough for you?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=13406" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[phsstpok]

That 512MB vcache limitation can be restricted even further depending on your AGP Aperture size.

To completely get around the problem get a copy of Cacheman 5. Cacheman will allow you to fully utilize all of your memory, even beyond 512MB. See below.

<A HREF="http://home.cnet.com/software/0-429667-7-1863611.html?st.sw.3745-7-1847279.txt.3745-7-1863611" target="_new">Cacheman review.</A>

<A HREF="http://www.outertech.com/downloads.php?product=3&download=12&PHPSESSID=4b6413986614ecc3c7832cc8e8b0ca8c" target="_new">Download Cacheman</A>

<b>We are all beta testers!</b>

 

[roblap]

Not sure but I THINK they're trying to tell me something!
:lol:
I will check out Cacheman tonight.

Thanks everybody!
Rob

 

[roblap]

And I completely agree with your sig!

We are definitely all beta testers!

Thanks again,
Rob

 

[btvillarin]

Good...or else I'm gonna stuff it down your throat some more!

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=13406" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[ycs46241]

your resources are down because of the hidden running programs on start up/
go to run type msconfig
select the selective startup then go to start up folder and remove all check marks this will give you above 90%

 

[roblap]

You can all collect you kickback checks from the makers of Cacheman! The program works!

Seriously, just using the default gaming setting knocked my used resources WAY down. I ran the program, installed the new RAM, and no problems!

Granted, it looks like all it does is edit your config files in the background, but that's the beauty of it. It is a good interface to use if you don't know how to (or don't want to) use the settings of msconfig, and it doesn't seem to use hardly any resources itself.

Thanks everyone for the tip!
Rob

 

[btvillarin]

Sweetness...
But, what gaming setting? Did you get version 5? That was implemented in the previous version. Oh well...as long as you're happy, I'm happy!

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=13406" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[roblap]

I downloaded Cacheman 5.

I went to the <i>Settings</i> tab and the <i>Disk Cache</i> icon. Under the <i>Win9x/Me Settings</i> I clicked on <i>Wizard</i>.

On the second page, the last preset setting is "using my computer mainly for gaming"...which I do!

Does this all sound correct?

Thanks
Rob

 

[btvillarin]

Oh, that setting. That's cool if that's what you do. No problem.

BTW, did you run it again <b>after</b> you installed your new RAM so it would optimize your system with it?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=13406" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[roblap]

I haven't dug too far into the different settings, but are there better ones for general gaming? That's my machine's main function.

I did run it again after installing the new 256MB stick, and it basically doubled my MaxCache sizes, and my used resources at startup fell to about half of what they were before.

 

[btvillarin]

Nah...that's probably fine.

It's supposed to double it, since you have twice as much more RAM. Besides, would you rather Windows use the Swap File than your memory? I don't think so...

Those resources have little to do with your memory, but more with the programs that are running. Make sure Cacheman is disabled at startup (under options, I think).

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=13406" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[lhgpoobaa]

run win2k.
more stability, no 512mb memory limitation


OEMs selling "High End"PCs with integrated video will be forced into Q3tournaments using a TNT2M64!

 

[btvillarin]

Shoot...that's actually what I would suggest. Problem is, does he have it?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=13406" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[DaveGOD]

he says hes a gamer... win2k non-too great for gaming

uh someone told me to set the machine as a 'network server', which is great on this Win95 but what about Win98se?

"Bring out the dead..."
"I'm not dead yet!"
"Yes you are!"

 

[btvillarin]

I can't verify that statement about Win2K, since I don't game too often.

But, setting the machine as a "network server" creates a setting that allows your computer to cache 2729 files and 64 paths, while the "desktop computer" setting caches only 677 files and 32 paths. It's not that much memory, but a greater speed boost in file browsing.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=13406" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[Ed_Phoon]

Try change your swap file to a smaller size.
Mine is 300mb permanent.
......or, reinstall Windows?

 

[roblap]

Unfortunately I don't have Win2000. I have been hesitant to move to 2000 or XP due to the potential for problems with older games I have that run fine on 98SE. Sooner or later I may switch, but for now I think I'm OK.

 

[DaveGOD]

haha i wait for a minimum of 6 months (usually a year) after they come out before i'll even consider buying. im still going to be using Win98se when my new comp arrives sometime next week (hopefully).

Win2K is just not for gaming, older games especially have lots of problems, or more to the point, many just dont work on it (well, so i pick up anyway, u might have guessed i dont use win2k lol).

btw, on Win98se, is FAT32 as standard or do i do something to use it? i take it that it is better? i cant remember all the stuff i heard, it was so long ago (i use win95 still).

"Bring out the dead..."
"I'm not dead yet!"
"Yes you are!"