Is there A Maximum amount of ram that widows Me can Handle ? I heard that you should not go over 512mb with win98. and my new motherboard can go up to 1.5gb. Any info will help. Thanks Rod
Printable View
Is there A Maximum amount of ram that widows Me can Handle ? I heard that you should not go over 512mb with win98. and my new motherboard can go up to 1.5gb. Any info will help. Thanks Rod
Just try it.You don't ruin your system even if winME doesn't support that much ram.
------------------
The impossible is often the untried.
Vernon, if I do the WORKAROUND, will ME not use or see anything over 512mb?
Thanks Rod
Your assesment is correct RodM. If you have to "limit" your resources to 512mb from within Windows, Windows only sees 512mb.
BTW... the KB article does not happen to everyone. i've talked to quite a few folks who have installed more than 512mb of RAM that do not have this problem.
If you need more than that... say you're a graphic artisit or use a lot of memory heavy programs... may I suggest installing win2k instead of ME. It was designed for SMP and situations in which you would need large amounts of RAM.
------------------
Moderator, Windows 9x/ME, Windows 2000, www.helpfromtechs.com
so you can't get over 512 ram into windows ME? there must be a way to do it ??
Yes download CACHEMAN 5.11 this progs makes WIN ME support over 512 MB RAMQuote:
Originally posted by wilson247:
so you can't get over 512 ram into windows ME? there must be a way to do it ??
http://www.outertech.com/
Thanks for all the help . I tryed to to add maxphyspage=30000 to systems.ini but windows seemed to very unsable and i had a bad crash.
i did get it up 899 MB of RAM . i am going to try the other way that i was told about .
Thanks
well that did the trick !!
all i could get was 899 MB of ram ..
Here is how i did it ..
first i going cacheman 5.11 and installed that .....then go start/run/msconfig/systems.ini/386.Enh
now go down to the bottom of that file and add this : MaxPhysPage=38300
then shut down and install your Ram..and away you go
i seemed to have a prob. with my norton softwear so i uninsalled that before i did all of this. Thanks for all the help and tips
It's better to set the virtual cache rather than limiting the RAM used by Windows.
In C:\Windows\System.ini, under the [VCache] heading, add this:
MaxFileCache=524288
This is Microsoft's recommendation for any ME PC with more than 512MB. This is a real belt and braces job and is optimum for 2 gigs of RAM, which ME is not supposed to support.
Anyone out there tried it?
A better idea is to set it for your installed RAM - the usual quoted figures are:
RAM Min Max
8MB 1024 2048
16MB 2048 4096
32MB 4096 8192
64MB 8192 16384
128MB 16384 32768
192MB 24576 49152
256MB 32768 65536
320MB 40960 81920
384MB 49152 98304
448MB 57344 114688
512MB 65536 131072
576MB 73728 147456
640MB 81920 163840
704MB 90112 180224
768MB 98304 196608
832MB 106496 212992
896MB 114688 229376
960MB 122880 245760
1024MB 131072 262144
Or Min=128×RAM and Max=256×RAM
Min is MinFileCache (not required, but desirable)
Max is MaxFileCache
You should also add:
ChunkSize=512
I've got 512MB:
MinFileCache=65536
MaxFileCache=131072
ChunkSize=512
According to Microsoft, ME and 98 will support about 1.5GB, but anything over 1GB is asking for trouble.
Unfortunately, I'm not about here as much as I used to be, so if you want to pick my brains you may have to wait a few days.
------------------
Is that vacancy for registry guru still open? https://discussions.virtualdr.com/
[This message has been edited by Spiny (edited 04-13-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Spiny (edited 04-13-2002).]
Thanks thats some good info ..so if i wanted to get to a 1 GIG of RAM i would enter this ...
MaxFileCache=524288
or
MaxFileCache=162144
Also , I have 1- 512 stick and 2- 256 sticks
would the chucksize still work ??
You want this:
MinFileCache=131072
MaxFileCache=262144
ChunkSize=512
I believe ChunkSize is KB, in any case, it's the amount of data that's moved at any one time.
If it's too small, it won't do any good.
If it's too big, it'll impact performance.
Sorry about the delay, but I did warn you.
------------------
Is that vacancy for registry guru still open? ;)
[This message has been edited by Spiny (edited 04-13-2002).]
Thanks !! but i have had so may probs. that i took it out ! o well i might try it again
So, what happened ? I want to add another 512 Meg also, lots of video work.Quote:
Thanks !! but i have had so may probs. that i took it out ! o well i might try it again
Did it work ???
please post back and let us know.
George
Spiny:
I have no idea where you got that table of vcache numbers, but personally, I think they are wrong. The file cache, like virtual memory, is not related to the installed ram whatsover, and thus there are no "magic" formulae for setting it.
On a Windows 98 system, there is no need to place limits on the file cache unless you get above 512MBs, and then it is to keep vcache from using all the virtual memory addresses, nothing to do with performance.
When you place a MIN on the cache you are dedicating that amount of ram to the file cache, whether it is in use or not. Ie: Windows can not use it for any other purpose.
And, sort of in the same vain, by placing a MAX on the file, windows is unable to make the cache larger if required, even if there is available ram.
On Windows 95 there was an issue with vcache, where windows was very slow in shrinking the cache, resulting in swapping. This area was completely rewritten on 98, and Windows is extremely quick in cutting back on the cache, if ram is required for another running app. Unfortunately, you will continue to see guidelines for placing limits on the cache, that are coming from the Windows 95 era, and they are no longer valid.
As for running above 512MBs, the first attempt should be to place a limit on the cache (MAX) at 512MBs. This keeps the file cache sized, and still allows windows to use all of the installed memory, if required.
By using MaxPhysPage, it is just like removing ram from the PC. Windows can not see or use it.
http://www.aumha.org/a/memmgmt.htm
http://www.onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#vcache
http://www.forrestandassociates.co.u...he.html#vcache
WhitPhil,
I have a problem of a different kind.
I have two 512MB PC2100 DDR sticks.
Both work fine if installed as a single unit.
However, with both memory sticks installed, I get a "testing" message on my monitor that will not go away, The BIOS never even gets a change to do its thing. Tried reversing the sticks same result.
I have a Viewsonic 17" flatpanel moninitor (VG171) running digitally connected to a GEForce4 TI 4600 Video card.
I checked through the Bios for any possible setting that may have an effect on the situation but could find none.
My Mobo an Abit BD7II-RAID is supposed to accept up to 2GB of memory.
Any suggestions welcome. I do a lot of video and DVD stuf and could realloy use the extra memory. I am running Windows ME.
Can you describe where in the boot process this message appears?
Also, what does this message look like. Is it the "dos" background, or in a Window? If a window, is there a title on the bar of the window?
Do you have the MinFileCache line in the System.ini file?
WhitPhil
This message appears as the very first thing on the screen when the machine is turned on.
The BIOS does not even seem to be able to start, it is a red rectangle that steps around the parameters of the screen simply stating "TESTING" and that is where the machine hangs. The normal BIOS info never appears on the screen there is no beep.
it's almost as though the BIOS cannot find the memory. As I stated both modules work and are good since I have tested them one at a time.
The CD ROM activity lights come on briefly like on a normal boot, the HD activity light flickers for a few seconds and thats the end of it.
There is no MinFileCache file in the system init file, though I do not think it would not make any difference here as the machine never gets that far.
It seems to me as though the BIOS hangs up testing the memory.
BIOS is award software 6.00 PG date 09/17/2002 latest update available
This is a memory / motherboard / BIOS issue, and as such I would start a thread in the Hardware Forum.
The only thing I can think of, is that there is something different about the 2 sticks that doesn't allow them to work together.
This site indicates "3 DIMM slots, 2GB Max (DIMM 2 & 3 sharing - 4 banks total) " and gives an example of a couple of benchmarks that he ran.