SAFE mode with 1.5GB RAM

[none]

Recently installed 1.5GB ram in the laptop. Went to boot into SAFE mode
last night and got the "windows cannot initialize, bla,bla, bla
something about not enough memory".

Well, 98Se works fine, just wanted to clean out some registry devices as
the laptop has had numerous upgrades and I prefer not to have old HDDs
listed, old CDROM/DVD etc.

The SYSTEM.INI has the MaxPhysPage=40000 entry and tried lowering that
to 20000 for safe mode but still Windows would not boot, so, is there
any way to get 98 to boot to safe mode without physically removing a
memory chip?

Thanks
Vic

 

[Ron Badour]

Here's some info on ram you might find helpful:

Over 512 mb or more of ram:

"Out of Memory" Errors with Large Amounts of RAM Installed [Q253912]
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kbEN-USQ253912

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 [Q184447]
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kbEN-USQ184447
***************************

1.5 gb or more of ram:

Computer May Reboot Continuously with More Than 1.5 GB of RAM [Q304943]
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kbEN-USQ304943


--
Regards

Ron Badour
MS MVP 1997 - 2008


"none" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
news:%23QuyB$GIIHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Recently installed 1.5GB ram in the laptop. Went to boot into SAFE mode
> last night and got the "windows cannot initialize, bla,bla, bla
> something about not enough memory".
>
> Well, 98Se works fine, just wanted to clean out some registry devices as
> the laptop has had numerous upgrades and I prefer not to have old HDDs
> listed, old CDROM/DVD etc.
>
> The SYSTEM.INI has the MaxPhysPage=40000 entry and tried lowering that
> to 20000 for safe mode but still Windows would not boot, so, is there
> any way to get 98 to boot to safe mode without physically removing a
> memory chip?
>
> Thanks
> Vic
>
>

 

[teebo]

> Recently installed 1.5GB ram in the laptop. Went to boot into SAFE mode
> last night and got the "windows cannot initialize, bla,bla, bla
> something about not enough memory".
>
> Well, 98Se works fine, just wanted to clean out some registry devices as

sorry but win98 do not use system.ini (or at least not those lines) when
you start in safe mode

microsoft thought it be safer to ignore all your settings :-(

> The SYSTEM.INI has the MaxPhysPage=40000 entry and tried lowering that
> to 20000 for safe mode but still Windows would not boot, so, is there
> any way to get 98 to boot to safe mode without physically removing a
> memory chip?

somewhere I have read that there is a commersial utility that patches
win98 to work with more memory. There is a free demo-version that *only*
work
in safe mode http://members.aol.com/rloew1/Programs/Patchm.zip so you could
probably try that one when you are dooing your systemcleaning (and then
deinstall the utility afterwards so you can start in normal mode again)

 

[none]

Great links guys, THANKS!

Will have to look at R. Loew's patch. I bought a patch from him (for 98)
to handle big drives. That was many years ago it works perfectly (using
the same PC right now. He also did a custom patch for the PC's BIOS
which works perfectly (same PC I'm on, it's over 10 years old!). Been
totally satisfied with his work. Maybe his latest patch will handle the
memory issue as well. Thanks again!

Vic
___
"none" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
news:#QuyB$GIIHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Recently installed 1.5GB ram in the laptop. Went to boot into SAFE
mode
> last night and got the "windows cannot initialize, bla,bla, bla
> something about not enough memory".
>
> Well, 98Se works fine, just wanted to clean out some registry devices
as
> the laptop has had numerous upgrades and I prefer not to have old HDDs
> listed, old CDROM/DVD etc.
>
> The SYSTEM.INI has the MaxPhysPage=40000 entry and tried lowering that
> to 20000 for safe mode but still Windows would not boot, so, is there
> any way to get 98 to boot to safe mode without physically removing a
> memory chip?
>
> Thanks
> Vic
>
>

 

[Dan]

Please let us know your experience with the memory patch and how well it
works. It would be great to hear the positives and negatives regarding the
patch. BTW, which were the other patches you liked and the system(s) you
used them on. It is great for all of us to share our knowledge to make the
group better able to help users of Windows 98 and 98 Second Edition in the
future.

 

[none]

Hi Dan

Well, I feel pressured for time but appreciate your comments, I too have
often thought the same with various posts.

Bought the patch by R. Loew. The purchase version filename is
PATCHMEM.ZIP. Cost is $20. Thought that was a little high, especially
since I bought from Mr. Loew before and his price was $10 for patches.
Oh well, inflation perhaps, but he does a nice job with mods!

What have I bought?

1. a custom BIOS mod for an OLD Tyan S1590 MOBO BIOS (on it right now,
it's my workhorse [every day] pc).

Found a BIOS mod'ed by Jan Steunebrink. His mod allowed the MOBO to
properly see and use certain features in a AMD *MOBILE* cpu. I have
maxed out the MOBO with an AMD K6-III+ 550MHz (mobile cpu) overclocked
to 600MHz. Works beautifully, runs cool, and it's the fastest CPU
available for the board (largest L2 cache too). BUT, that BIOS did not
allow drives over 137GB. That BIOS was from the year 2000 and Tyan did
not release further BIOS updates! Loew was able to provide a patch for
drives over 137GB to be recognized! In fact I have numerous 500GB drives
which work fine here thanks to his patch (it was a custom). Here's his
web page:
http://members.aol.com/rloew1/

2. Being a Windows 98 fan and needing BIG HDD's we needed a little work
there too, so, it was time for his HIGH CAPACITY DISK PATCH for Win9x:
http://members.aol.com/rloew1/Programs/Patch137.htm

Works GREAT!

3. last, up to the current PC era with gigabytes of RAM being needed,
and of course my unwillingness to give up Win98SE, had to find a way to
not have to pull a memory stick on the notebook (IBM ThinkPad T41) to
access Win98 safe mode (which I purposely do occasionally).
Lo-and-behold, this group says ANOTHER patch is available from R. Loew
which allows just that, the WINDOWS 98/SE/ME RAM LIMITATION PATCH!
http://members.aol.com/rloew1/Programs/Patchm.htm

How does it work you ask?
Well, have not had a chance to play EXTENSIVELY with it so all I can say
is Windows does boot with no errors, the system properties dialog says
there is 1533.0 MB RAM onboard. The setup runs *ANY* BIG programs thrown
at it like TOPO USA (topography software with 3D imaging), astronomy
software like Redshift5 (really nice!), it plays DVD from HD just
perfect (watching Armageddon FULL SCREEN right now [with Bruce Willis]).
What else can I tell you ... just checked system resources and with all
those programs open PLUS IE6 and OE, the resources are at 14% free.
Seems the resource problem inherent in Win9x will be the only limitation
now, at least for the way I use the PC!

Hope that gives a little insight

Vic

PS: you wanted me to also mention the negatives with the RAM Limitation
Patch have not found any!
____

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E1CAD1BD-5553-456F-B6E1-1854F4417D1A@microsoft.com...
> Please let us know your experience with the memory patch and how well
it
> works. It would be great to hear the positives and negatives
regarding the
> patch. BTW, which were the other patches you liked and the system(s)
you
> used them on. It is great for all of us to share our knowledge to
make the
> group better able to help users of Windows 98 and 98 Second Edition in
the
> future.

 

[Dan]

Windows 98 Second Edition does indeed have the resources limitation but the
nice thing about it is that you can have so many things running and the
operating system does not crash as you have found out in your case. I have
noticied this as well. Windows XP Professional has in the past for me had
problems when too many resources are used by slowing down greatly. I have
not found this to be the case with Windows 98 Second Edition. Thank you for
your comments.

 

[98 Guy]

none wrote:

> Bought the patch by R. Loew. The purchase version filename is
> PATCHMEM.ZIP. Cost is $20. Thought that was a little high,
> especially since I bought from Mr. Loew before and his price
> was $10 for patches. Oh well, inflation perhaps, but he does
> a nice job with mods!

Would you be willing to send me that file so I can put it on my
fileden site and make it available for free?

If so, then send it as an attachment to ninety8-guy at hot mail dot
com.

 

[John John]

98 Guy wrote:

> none wrote:
>
>
>>Bought the patch by R. Loew. The purchase version filename is
>>PATCHMEM.ZIP. Cost is $20. Thought that was a little high,
>>especially since I bought from Mr. Loew before and his price
>>was $10 for patches. Oh well, inflation perhaps, but he does
>>a nice job with mods!
>
>
> Would you be willing to send me that file so I can put it on my
> fileden site and make it available for free?
>
> If so, then send it as an attachment to ninety8-guy at hot mail dot
> com.

Sheesh! Instead of pirating other peoples work why don't you make your
own patch and give it to others? I won't get into the debate of whether
or not Mr. Loew should give his work or make it public domain, that is
his business, but until he does decide to give it away stealing his work
is wrong! Are you so cheap that you can't part with $20?

John

 

[98 Guy]

John John wrote:

> > Would you be willing to send me that file so I can put it on
> > my fileden site and make it available for free?
>
> Sheesh! Instead of pirating other peoples work why don't you
> make your own patch and give it to others?

That's no fun.

> I won't get into the debate of whether or not Mr. Loew should
> give his work or make it public domain,

The time has long passed for that. By this point in time he has
realistically earned more than 90% of what-ever the projected sum
total would likely be if it remained private and closely controlled.

> Are you so cheap that you can't part with $20?

I actually don't need it because I use large SATA drives (not
IDE/PATA). And even if I did need it, I can resort to using the
patches that were developed and made available through the msfn forum:

http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA_Break_137Gb_barrier_t78592.html

For which I've made available here:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/readme.txt
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4001111F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4001119F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102001F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102186F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102222F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102225F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102226F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4903000F.ZIP

Making the Loew version publically available is a service for the
dwindling number of win-98 users. Is it a radical, or rogue thing to
do? Sure. But so is a lot of things, like installing 98 using
commonly available product keys.

 

[John John]

98 Guy wrote:

> John John wrote:
>
>
>>>Would you be willing to send me that file so I can put it on
>>>my fileden site and make it available for free?
>>
>>Sheesh! Instead of pirating other peoples work why don't you
>>make your own patch and give it to others?
>
>
> That's no fun.
>
>
>>I won't get into the debate of whether or not Mr. Loew should
>>give his work or make it public domain,
>
>
> The time has long passed for that. By this point in time he has
> realistically earned more than 90% of what-ever the projected sum
> total would likely be if it remained private and closely controlled.

Whether or not the time has passed and what Mr. Loew may or may not have
earned with his patches is irrelevant. It is his work and efforts and
he owns it, if he wants to give it away that is his decision only to make.


> Making the Loew version publically available is a service for the
> dwindling number of win-98 users.

Making Mr. Loew's patches publicly available is theft, plain and simple.
You do not own that work and you have no right making it publicly
available. What you are doing is no different than if I was to break
into your bank account and serve myself then make the account
information publicly available for others to go in and steal what might
be left to be stolen. How would you like it if I was to steal your
things? How would you like it if you had worked for 2 weeks of hard
labour cutting and splitting firewood and while you were gone out one
afternoon I were to come to your place and steal your wood? How would
you feel if you had worked for six months perfecting the lowly
carburetor so that it could burn 1 gallon of fuel per hundred kilometer
and all of a sudden I were to make your secret publicly available, the
logic being that carburetors are a thing of the past, fuel injectors are
now the norm?

Is it a radical, or rogue thing to
> do? Sure. But so is a lot of things, like installing 98 using
> commonly available product keys.

That is also theft. As if stealing other peoples work for your own
limited use isn't bad enough, making it publicly available for all
others to steal is even worse, you are now actively participating in
acts of piracy.

John

 

[98 Guy]

Little John wrote:

> > Is it a radical, or rogue thing to do? Sure. But so is a
> > lot of things, like installing 98 using commonly available
> > product keys.
>
> That is also theft. As if stealing other peoples work for your
> own limited use isn't bad enough, making it publicly available
> for all others to steal is even worse,

That's what the internet is for.

> you are now actively participating in acts of piracy.

Is that supposed to phaze me?

 

[John John]

98 Guy wrote:

> Little John wrote:
>
>
>>>Is it a radical, or rogue thing to do? Sure. But so is a
>>>lot of things, like installing 98 using commonly available
>>>product keys.
>>
>>That is also theft. As if stealing other peoples work for your
>>own limited use isn't bad enough, making it publicly available
>>for all others to steal is even worse,
>
>
> That's what the internet is for.
>
>
>>you are now actively participating in acts of piracy.
>
>
> Is that supposed to phaze me?

I'm sure it doesn't. Any of the regulars here already know what fiber
you are made of, this last post of your's simply makes it clearer that
you have no respect for others, you are a thief.

John