Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode?

[Angus Rodgers]

I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems.

There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another
similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely
because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting
some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I
would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what-
ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless
it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.)

In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB),
and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB).

From what little I've read on the subject, I get the impression
that it will be OK to set MaxFileCache=327680 (320MB) (or indeed
any value up to 512MB) - the value of MinFileCache not really
being important at all - and then go ahead and install the extra
256MB.

I just have two questions:

(1) As I gather that system.ini is not processed when you boot
into Safe Mode, does this mean that Windows will reserve too
many memory addresses for VCache to be able to boot into Safe
Mode at all?

<http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KBEN-USq253912>

"The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines
the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present
when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses
to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can
increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are
allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through
0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.

On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can
be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the
system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for
other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new
virtual machine)."

(2) If I set MaxFileCache to some value less than 256MB (e.g.
leaving it at its present value of 160MB), will applications
running under Win98SE (in normal mode, I mean, not Safe Mode)
be able to use the more than 512MB of RAM that would seem to
be available even when the cache is filled up to the maximum?
(If not, might I as well set MinFileCache to 256MB or more?)

--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril

 

[MEB]

NOTE:
If the system has 700MB's of RAM or more installed the following line MUST
be added to the [vcache] section of windows\system.ini file.

MaxFileCache=512000

For more info see:
Brian A. Sesko
"Re: too much memory?" - this discussion group
Sunday, May 11, 2008 05:21 AM
http://groups.google.fr/group/micro...cussion/browse_thread/thread/63d498782ed72def

and see:
someone watching
Sun, 11 May 2008 17:26:00 -0500
same discussion

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________


"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:rm9v541k9gap0aik0sbne4g0o6ef0kamjn@4ax.com...
| I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems.
|
| There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another
| similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely
| because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting
| some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I
| would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what-
| ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless
| it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.)
|
| In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB),
| and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB).
|
| From what little I've read on the subject, I get the impression
| that it will be OK to set MaxFileCache=327680 (320MB) (or indeed
| any value up to 512MB) - the value of MinFileCache not really
| being important at all - and then go ahead and install the extra
| 256MB.
|
| I just have two questions:
|
| (1) As I gather that system.ini is not processed when you boot
| into Safe Mode, does this mean that Windows will reserve too
| many memory addresses for VCache to be able to boot into Safe
| Mode at all?
|
| <http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KBEN-USq253912>
|
| "The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines
| the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present
| when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses
| to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can
| increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are
| allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through
| 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.
|
| On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can
| be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the
| system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for
| other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new
| virtual machine)."
|
| (2) If I set MaxFileCache to some value less than 256MB (e.g.
| leaving it at its present value of 160MB), will applications
| running under Win98SE (in normal mode, I mean, not Safe Mode)
| be able to use the more than 512MB of RAM that would seem to
| be available even when the cache is filled up to the maximum?
| (If not, might I as well set MinFileCache to 256MB or more?)
|
| --
| Angus Rodgers
| (twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
| Contains mild peril

 

[Angus Rodgers]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:30:35 -0400, "MEB"
<meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote:

>NOTE:
>If the system has 700MB's of RAM or more installed the following line MUST
>be added to the [vcache] section of windows\system.ini file.
>
>MaxFileCache=512000
>
>For more info see:
>Brian A. Sesko
>"Re: too much memory?" - this discussion group
>Sunday, May 11, 2008 05:21 AM
>http://groups.google.fr/group/micro...cussion/browse_thread/thread/63d498782ed72def
>
>and see:
>someone watching
>Sun, 11 May 2008 17:26:00 -0500
>same discussion

With respect, I did do some homework before asking my questions.
I'm sorry if I didn't do enough, but it's not clear to me where
to look next. (I'm a reasonably experienced Win9x user, but by
no stretch of the imagination am I an expert.)

I had already read the thread you've referred me to, as well as
every other relevant thread I could find in the newsgroup since
11 Sep 2007. (Of course I can Google further back than that, if
it's really necessary.)

Do you mean /exactly/ 700MB? Do you mean that the MaxFileCache
value must be /exactly/ 512000 (not even an integral number of
megabytes!)? If so, why?

I was asking for information, not instructions without reasons
attached. Your instructions seem too precise and insufficiently
informative.

--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril

 

[Ron Martell]

Angus Rodgers <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote:

<snip>
>In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB),
>and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB).
>


I think you are unnecessarily limiting the overall performance of your
computer by placing such a low limitation on the amount of memory used
for caching files. The result is additional hard drive access as
needed files are repeatedly reloaded from the hard drive, which takes
at least 1,000 times as long as it would if they were retained (=
cached) after being loaded.

If this were my computer I would increase the MaxFileCache value to
512000 so as to obtain the most effective use of the available RAM.
RAM used for disk cache is always considered to be a lower priority
use than RAM used for actual program execution or data file processing
so if additional RAM is needed for these items the system will
automatically reduce the disk cache size to less than the specified
maximum so as to provide the needed RAM.

Hope this is of some assistance.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[Angus Rodgers]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:08:24 +0100, I hastily wrote:

>[...] Do you mean that the MaxFileCache
>value must be /exactly/ 512000 (not even an integral number of
>megabytes!)?

<blush>

Actually, it's exactly 500MB! But again, why this exact value
(which is a round-looking number in the decimal system but not
in the binary system)?

--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril

 

[glee]

"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:rm9v541k9gap0aik0sbne4g0o6ef0kamjn@4ax.com...
> I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems.
>
> There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another
> similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely
> because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting
> some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I
> would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what-
> ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless
> it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.)
>
> In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB),
> and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB).
>
> From what little I've read on the subject, I get the impression
> that it will be OK to set MaxFileCache=327680 (320MB) (or indeed
> any value up to 512MB) - the value of MinFileCache not really
> being important at all - and then go ahead and install the extra
> 256MB.
>
> I just have two questions:
>
> (1) As I gather that system.ini is not processed when you boot
> into Safe Mode, does this mean that Windows will reserve too
> many memory addresses for VCache to be able to boot into Safe
> Mode at all?
>
> <http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KBEN-USq253912>
>
> "The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines
> the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present
> when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses
> to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can
> increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are
> allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through
> 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.
>
> On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can
> be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the
> system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for
> other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new
> virtual machine)."
>
> (2) If I set MaxFileCache to some value less than 256MB (e.g.
> leaving it at its present value of 160MB), will applications
> running under Win98SE (in normal mode, I mean, not Safe Mode)
> be able to use the more than 512MB of RAM that would seem to
> be available even when the cache is filled up to the maximum?
> (If not, might I as well set MinFileCache to 256MB or more?)

A agree with Ron Martell's reply wholeheartedly. Set the MaxFileCache to 512000 for
best performance with that amount of RAM installed.

Additionally, there is no need to have any MinFileCache entry in your case. I would
remove the entire MinFileCache line from the .system.ini file.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm

 

[Angus Rodgers]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:10:02 -0700, Ron Martell
<ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote:

>Angus Rodgers <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB),
>>and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB).
>>
>
>
>I think you are unnecessarily limiting the overall performance of your
>computer by placing such a low limitation on the amount of memory used
>for caching files. The result is additional hard drive access as
>needed files are repeatedly reloaded from the hard drive, which takes
>at least 1,000 times as long as it would if they were retained (=
>cached) after being loaded.
>
>If this were my computer I would increase the MaxFileCache value to
>512000 so as to obtain the most effective use of the available RAM.
>RAM used for disk cache is always considered to be a lower priority
>use than RAM used for actual program execution or data file processing
>so if additional RAM is needed for these items the system will
>automatically reduce the disk cache size to less than the specified
>maximum so as to provide the needed RAM.
>
>Hope this is of some assistance.

What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that Windows
not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show quite
a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but I
did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems irrational
to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time as
a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't
have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw
any firm conclusion from such a vague argument it just makes me uneasy.

As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache
value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm
really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a good
policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand what
I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!).

--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril

 

[glee]

"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:9utv54pu4nh0j0m2q10kc1ha2naqqil1s4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:10:02 -0700, Ron Martell
> <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Angus Rodgers <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB),
>>>and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB).
>>>
>>
>>
>>I think you are unnecessarily limiting the overall performance of your
>>computer by placing such a low limitation on the amount of memory used
>>for caching files. The result is additional hard drive access as
>>needed files are repeatedly reloaded from the hard drive, which takes
>>at least 1,000 times as long as it would if they were retained (=
>>cached) after being loaded.
>>
>>If this were my computer I would increase the MaxFileCache value to
>>512000 so as to obtain the most effective use of the available RAM.
>>RAM used for disk cache is always considered to be a lower priority
>>use than RAM used for actual program execution or data file processing
>>so if additional RAM is needed for these items the system will
>>automatically reduce the disk cache size to less than the specified
>>maximum so as to provide the needed RAM.
>>
>>Hope this is of some assistance.
>
> What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that Windows
> not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show quite
> a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but I
> did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems irrational
> to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time as
> a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't
> have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw
> any firm conclusion from such a vague argument it just makes me uneasy.
>
> As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache
> value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm
> really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a good
> policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand what
> I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!).

I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding:

Memory Management in Win98 & ME
http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm

--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm

 

[Angus Rodgers]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0400, "glee"
<glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote:

>"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:9utv54pu4nh0j0m2q10kc1ha2naqqil1s4@4ax.com...
>
>> What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that Windows
>> not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show quite
>> a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but I
>> did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems irrational
>> to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time as
>> a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't
>> have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw
>> any firm conclusion from such a vague argument it just makes me uneasy.
>>
>> As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache
>> value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm
>> really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a good
>> policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand what
>> I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!).
>
>I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding:
>
>Memory Management in Win98 & ME
>http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm

I thought I had read it already, but I had missed this paragraph:

"If code or data were stored in VCache only for caching purposes,
then it should be emptied out before the swap file is used but in
Win98/ME, VCache often will stay quite large, forcing the swap file
to be used more. Is this another memory leak? No, it isn’t. It would
be a memory leak if the contents of VCache were only stored, inactive
code or data. But if the contents are code or data currently being used
(as it commonly will be in Win98/ME), we have quite another story!"

That reassures me somewhat. I'll mull it over, and consider increasing
MaxFileCache (and deleting MinFileCache altogether).

Assuming this is OK, it makes my second question (in the OP) pretty
much irrelevant (but still of some academic interest). However, my
main worry was the first question - the one about Safe Mode - which
has still not been answered.

--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril

 

[MEB]

The number comes from both users and Microsoft via their testing. Seems the
system sweet spot or what it can readily handled in the *most* number of
motherboards/BIOS/chipsets and with a *normal* load of applications, devices
and other, vying for addressing/resource use.. experimentation is always in
order.

Here's another setting that ALWAYS brought wrath from the MVPs when I used
to present it here:
system.ini
[386Enh]
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

Above works for some, others complain...


As for your Safe Mode question: if your Normal Start can handle the memory,
Safe Mode has no difficulty [at least in all the testing I have done]. Safe
Mode isn't {by default} going to run any of the devices/drivers that might
take up or conflict with addressing. Everything is limited, in compatibility
mode, or disabled.

Here's some personal test results for sweet spot memory:
Super Socket 7 = 128 - *256 megs
Slot 1 and Socket 370 = *384 megs
Newer depends more on motherboard, chipset, and memory manufacturer {FSB,
RAS/CAS, which VIA or Intel set, etc} from 384 to 768 megs.
Results obtained when tested with Office and various games using several
different video cards and processors {over-clocked and not}.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:c8tv541v7lbjba7vcldv5il3o7h1553p6u@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:08:24 +0100, I hastily wrote:
|
| >[...] Do you mean that the MaxFileCache
| >value must be /exactly/ 512000 (not even an integral number of
| >megabytes!)?
|
| <blush>
|
| Actually, it's exactly 500MB! But again, why this exact value
| (which is a round-looking number in the decimal system but not
| in the binary system)?
|
| --
| Angus Rodgers
| (twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
| Contains mild peril

 

[glee]

"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:5pd064hk8v93s1oh5f69dj61e8hun1m710@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0400, "glee"
> <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>news:9utv54pu4nh0j0m2q10kc1ha2naqqil1s4@4ax.com...
>>
>>> What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that Windows
>>> not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show quite
>>> a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but I
>>> did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems irrational
>>> to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time as
>>> a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't
>>> have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw
>>> any firm conclusion from such a vague argument it just makes me uneasy.
>>>
>>> As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache
>>> value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm
>>> really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a good
>>> policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand what
>>> I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!).
>>
>>I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding:
>>
>>Memory Management in Win98 & ME
>>http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm
>
> I thought I had read it already, but I had missed this paragraph:
>
> "If code or data were stored in VCache only for caching purposes,
> then it should be emptied out before the swap file is used but in
> Win98/ME, VCache often will stay quite large, forcing the swap file
> to be used more. Is this another memory leak? No, it isn't. It would
> be a memory leak if the contents of VCache were only stored, inactive
> code or data. But if the contents are code or data currently being used
> (as it commonly will be in Win98/ME), we have quite another story!"
>
> That reassures me somewhat. I'll mull it over, and consider increasing
> MaxFileCache (and deleting MinFileCache altogether).
>
> Assuming this is OK, it makes my second question (in the OP) pretty
> much irrelevant (but still of some academic interest). However, my
> main worry was the first question - the one about Safe Mode - which
> has still not been answered.

The system.ini file IS processed in Safe Mode:

How Windows 95 Performs a Safe-Mode Start
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/122051

"In Windows, what is 'Safe Mode' used for and why?"
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question575.htm

Understanding Safe Mode
http://www.windowsgalore.com/windows.95/safemode.htm

Got Google? Use it.....
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm

 

[Etal]

Angus Rodgers wrote:

> I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems.
>
> There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another
> similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely
> because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting
> some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I
> would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what-
> ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless
> it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.)
>

Not only the amount of RAM matters, but also its speed. Occupying
all three DIMM sockets may lower the the maximum memory-speed
usable, depending on what DIMM cards you have.

From the Manual :
Note: PC2700 maximum to 4 banks only. PC3200 maximum to 2 banks only.


--
Nah-ah. I'm staying out of this. ... Now, here's my opinion.

Please followup in the newsgroup.
E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.

 

[PCR]

Angus Rodgers wrote:
| On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0400, "glee"
| <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote:
|
|>"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
|>news:9utv54pu4nh0j0m2q10kc1ha2naqqil1s4@4ax.com...
|>
|>> What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that
|>> Windows not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts
|>> to show quite a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the
|>> exact figures, but I did a few informal experiments.) On the face
|>> of it, it seems irrational to have a large quantity of disk data
|>> cached in RAM at the same time as a large quantity of RAM data is
|>> being paged out to disk! But I don't have a clear enough mental
|>> model of how Win98SE handles things to draw any firm conclusion
|>> from such a vague argument it just makes me uneasy.
|>>
|>> As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache
|>> value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when
|>> I'm really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this
|>> is a good policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I
|>> understand what I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!).
|>
|>I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding:
|>
|>Memory Management in Win98 & ME
|>http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm
|
| I thought I had read it already, but I had missed this paragraph:
|
| "If code or data were stored in VCache only for caching purposes,
| then it should be emptied out before the swap file is used but in
| Win98/ME, VCache often will stay quite large, forcing the swap file
| to be used more. Is this another memory leak? No, it isn’t. It would
| be a memory leak if the contents of VCache were only stored, inactive
| code or data. But if the contents are code or data currently being
| used (as it commonly will be in Win98/ME), we have quite another
| story!"
|
| That reassures me somewhat. I'll mull it over, and consider
| increasing MaxFileCache (and deleting MinFileCache altogether).
|
| Assuming this is OK, it makes my second question (in the OP) pretty
| much irrelevant (but still of some academic interest). However, my
| main worry was the first question - the one about Safe Mode - which
| has still not been answered.

Going by the following article, which Bill Starbuck once posted (it's in
my Keepers), only part of System.ini is effectively bypassed. The
[vcache] section that contains that MaxFileCache is not specifically
said to be bypassed...

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/122051/EN-US/
How Windows 95 Performs a Safe-Mode Start

........Quote...........
3. Windows 95 now uses the original registry settings and System.ini and
Win.ini files.

This effectively bypasses the [Boot] and [386Enh] sections of the
System.ini file and disables all the Windows 95 protected-mode devices
listed in Device Manager. Also, Windows 95 does not run programs listed
on the "Load=" and "Run=" lines in the [Windows] section of the Win.ini
file.

Note that although the [Boot] section of the System.ini file is
bypassed, the "shell=" and "drivers=" lines in the [Boot] section are
processed.
........EOQ.............

HOWEVER, I really can't say for sure this provides a definitive answer.

| --
| Angus Rodgers
| (twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
| Contains mild peril

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[Angus Rodgers]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:28:55 -0400, "glee"
<glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote:

>"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:5pd064hk8v93s1oh5f69dj61e8hun1m710@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0400, "glee"
>> <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>>news:9utv54pu4nh0j0m2q10kc1ha2naqqil1s4@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that Windows
>>>> not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show quite
>>>> a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but I
>>>> did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems irrational
>>>> to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time as
>>>> a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't
>>>> have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw
>>>> any firm conclusion from such a vague argument it just makes me uneasy.
>>>>
>>>> As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache
>>>> value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm
>>>> really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a good
>>>> policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand what
>>>> I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!).
>>>
>>>I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding:
>>>
>>>Memory Management in Win98 & ME
>>>http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm
>>
>> I thought I had read it already, but I had missed this paragraph:
>>
>> "If code or data were stored in VCache only for caching purposes,
>> then it should be emptied out before the swap file is used but in
>> Win98/ME, VCache often will stay quite large, forcing the swap file
>> to be used more. Is this another memory leak? No, it isn't. It would
>> be a memory leak if the contents of VCache were only stored, inactive
>> code or data. But if the contents are code or data currently being used
>> (as it commonly will be in Win98/ME), we have quite another story!"
>>
>> That reassures me somewhat. I'll mull it over, and consider increasing
>> MaxFileCache (and deleting MinFileCache altogether).
>>
>> Assuming this is OK, it makes my second question (in the OP) pretty
>> much irrelevant (but still of some academic interest). However, my
>> main worry was the first question - the one about Safe Mode - which
>> has still not been answered.
>
>The system.ini file IS processed in Safe Mode:
>
>How Windows 95 Performs a Safe-Mode Start
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/122051
>
>"In Windows, what is 'Safe Mode' used for and why?"
>http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question575.htm
>
>Understanding Safe Mode
>http://www.windowsgalore.com/windows.95/safemode.htm
>
>Got Google? Use it.....

No need to be offensive. I already said I'm no expert and in one
of the threads in this NG which I read on this topic, somebody
said that system.ini was not read in Safe Mode, and as this seemed
to make sense, and it chimed with what (little) I already knew, I
didn't bother to check further (although there was a small sense
of guilt and unease in my mind about not having done so - so you're
not entirely wrong to chide me). In my first post, I did take care
to state my assumption explicitly, so that it could be challenged
if false.

Anyway, thanks for the references. (This is an informative, helpful
and low-noise newsgroup. In saying that my question had not been
answered, I was not being pushy, merely stating a fact.)

--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril

 

[Angus Rodgers]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:44:25 +0200, Etal
<look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote:

>> I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems.
>>
>> There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another
>> similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely
>> because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting
>> some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I
>> would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what-
>> ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless
>> it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.)
>>
>
>Not only the amount of RAM matters, but also its speed. Occupying
>all three DIMM sockets may lower the the maximum memory-speed
>usable, depending on what DIMM cards you have.
>
> From the Manual :
>Note: PC2700 maximum to 4 banks only. PC3200 maximum to 2 banks only.

The existing DIMM was PC2700, so I ordered another PC2700, even though
PC3200 was also available. I don't understand the technical issues,
but this seemed the course least likely to cause problems. I haven't
time to look further into it at the moment (late for an appointment -
just reading and replying quickly!), but one thing I'm not clear about
is what a "bank" is. As there are only 3 slots for DIMMS, it hardly
seems likely that one DIMM equals one "bank" (otherwise 4 banks would
be impossible!). It's logically possible that each of my DIMMs is two
"banks", so there might not be room for any more! But I can probably
find this out for myself without having to ask too many questions here.

--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril

 

[Ingeborg]

Angus Rodgers wrote:

>
> I just have two questions:
>
> (1) As I gather that system.ini is not processed when you boot
> into Safe Mode, does this mean that Windows will reserve too
> many memory addresses for VCache to be able to boot into Safe
> Mode at all?
>

You can find a lot of useful information in this thread:
<http://www.msfn.org/board/Help-I-need-to-Get-2GB-installed-RAM-wo-t109574.html>

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

It's offensive to correct a mistake? It's offensive to suggest the use of
Google? What was offensive about that post? Posting the three links that
will tell you more about Safe Mode than anybody here could possibly remember
and write down?

What was offensive about that post? All it suggests is that if you'd do a
few minutes research before posting an issue that you, 1. Might not have to
post here, after reading up on the topic, or 2. You'll at least have a
better understanding of what we're trying to get across when we do provide
suggestions, discuss the issue, etc.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:41f164ts0katuu497lg5aprh4558bv9dti@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:28:55 -0400, "glee"
> <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>news:5pd064hk8v93s1oh5f69dj61e8hun1m710@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0400, "glee"
>>> <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:9utv54pu4nh0j0m2q10kc1ha2naqqil1s4@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that
>>>>> Windows
>>>>> not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show
>>>>> quite
>>>>> a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but
>>>>> I
>>>>> did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems
>>>>> irrational
>>>>> to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time
>>>>> as
>>>>> a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't
>>>>> have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw
>>>>> any firm conclusion from such a vague argument it just makes me
>>>>> uneasy.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache
>>>>> value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm
>>>>> really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a
>>>>> good
>>>>> policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand
>>>>> what
>>>>> I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!).
>>>>
>>>>I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding:
>>>>
>>>>Memory Management in Win98 & ME
>>>>http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm
>>>
>>> I thought I had read it already, but I had missed this paragraph:
>>>
>>> "If code or data were stored in VCache only for caching purposes,
>>> then it should be emptied out before the swap file is used but in
>>> Win98/ME, VCache often will stay quite large, forcing the swap file
>>> to be used more. Is this another memory leak? No, it isn't. It would
>>> be a memory leak if the contents of VCache were only stored, inactive
>>> code or data. But if the contents are code or data currently being used
>>> (as it commonly will be in Win98/ME), we have quite another story!"
>>>
>>> That reassures me somewhat. I'll mull it over, and consider increasing
>>> MaxFileCache (and deleting MinFileCache altogether).
>>>
>>> Assuming this is OK, it makes my second question (in the OP) pretty
>>> much irrelevant (but still of some academic interest). However, my
>>> main worry was the first question - the one about Safe Mode - which
>>> has still not been answered.
>>
>>The system.ini file IS processed in Safe Mode:
>>
>>How Windows 95 Performs a Safe-Mode Start
>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/122051
>>
>>"In Windows, what is 'Safe Mode' used for and why?"
>>http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question575.htm
>>
>>Understanding Safe Mode
>>http://www.windowsgalore.com/windows.95/safemode.htm
>>
>>Got Google? Use it.....
>
> No need to be offensive. I already said I'm no expert and in one
> of the threads in this NG which I read on this topic, somebody
> said that system.ini was not read in Safe Mode, and as this seemed
> to make sense, and it chimed with what (little) I already knew, I
> didn't bother to check further (although there was a small sense
> of guilt and unease in my mind about not having done so - so you're
> not entirely wrong to chide me). In my first post, I did take care
> to state my assumption explicitly, so that it could be challenged
> if false.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the references. (This is an informative, helpful
> and low-noise newsgroup. In saying that my question had not been
> answered, I was not being pushy, merely stating a fact.)
>
> --
> Angus Rodgers
> (twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
> Contains mild peril

 

[Angus Rodgers]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:34:06 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>It's offensive to correct a mistake? It's offensive to suggest the use of
>Google? What was offensive about that post? Posting the three links that
>will tell you more about Safe Mode than anybody here could possibly remember
>and write down?
>
>What was offensive about that post? All it suggests is that if you'd do a
>few minutes research before posting an issue that you, 1. Might not have to
>post here, after reading up on the topic, or 2. You'll at least have a
>better understanding of what we're trying to get across when we do provide
>suggestions, discuss the issue, etc.

I thought what I wrote was quite clear if it isn't, I don't know
how to make it any clearer. I don't know what I've run into here,
but it would seem to be futile to argue about it. /Of course/ I'm
not disputing that the references provided were helpful (I've just
got back from a day away, and haven't had time to follow them up yet,
but I have no reason to doubt that they will answer my questions),
and indeed I have already thanked the poster for providing them.

If it helps. I'll just repeat the most relevant part of what I
wrote:

"[...] in one of the threads in this NG which I read on this
topic, somebody said that system.ini was not read in Safe Mode,
and as this seemed to make sense, and it chimed with what (little)
I already knew, I didn't bother to check further (although there
was a small sense of guilt and unease in my mind about not having
done so - so you're not entirely wrong to chide me). In my first
post, I did take care to state my assumption explicitly, so that
it could be challenged if false."

And from another post:

"With respect, I did do some homework before asking my questions.
I'm sorry if I didn't do enough, but it's not clear to me where
to look next. (I'm a reasonably experienced Win9x user, but by
no stretch of the imagination am I an expert.)

I had already read the thread you've referred me to, as well as
every other relevant thread I could find in the newsgroup since
11 Sep 2007. (Of course I can Google further back than that, if
it's really necessary.)"

Perhaps you can point out whatever flaw it is in my use of English
which causes you to imagine that I never do any research before
asking questions, or that I have never thought of using Google,
or that I imagine I don't make mistakes, or that I can't learn
from what I'm told by people who are better informed than myself.

I find your reply offensive, in exactly the same way as I was
offended by glee's unnecessary "Got Google? Use it....." jibe.

Is that any clearer?

Now would you like to explain to me in what way I have been
offensive to anyone in this newsgroup, to justify these two
insulting responses I have received?

--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

"However, my main worry was the first question - the one about Safe Mode -
which has still not been answered."

"(1) As I gather that system.ini is not processed when you boot
into Safe Mode, does this mean that Windows will reserve too
many memory addresses for VCache to be able to boot into Safe
Mode at all?"

This tells you right out front that what you "gathered" is wrong.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=system.ini+"safe+mode"

All Brian did was suggest Google, which you did NOT mention. You said you
did your homework, but major chunks of that homework resulted in wrong info.
Below, you ADMIT that you didn't do your due diligence.

All I did was ask you just what you found offensive about Brian's post. It
would appear that you took offense at the wording Brian used, which was both
a play on American advertising and, yes, a reminder that Google is your
friend. All I did in my second paragraph was to explain WHY we suggest
Google before posting. It wasn't intended to chide you personally.

It offends ME me that you obviously DON'T know that much about the subject,
yet you argued with practically everyone who took the time to correct your
mistaken ideas.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com


"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:eah264dkvmv9qtqb28m3tva09qqp9mej7r@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:34:06 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>
>>It's offensive to correct a mistake? It's offensive to suggest the use of
>>Google? What was offensive about that post? Posting the three links that
>>will tell you more about Safe Mode than anybody here could possibly
>>remember
>>and write down?
>>
>>What was offensive about that post? All it suggests is that if you'd do a
>>few minutes research before posting an issue that you, 1. Might not have
>>to
>>post here, after reading up on the topic, or 2. You'll at least have a
>>better understanding of what we're trying to get across when we do provide
>>suggestions, discuss the issue, etc.
>
> I thought what I wrote was quite clear if it isn't, I don't know
> how to make it any clearer. I don't know what I've run into here,
> but it would seem to be futile to argue about it. /Of course/ I'm
> not disputing that the references provided were helpful (I've just
> got back from a day away, and haven't had time to follow them up yet,
> but I have no reason to doubt that they will answer my questions),
> and indeed I have already thanked the poster for providing them.
>
> If it helps. I'll just repeat the most relevant part of what I
> wrote:
>
> "[...] in one of the threads in this NG which I read on this
> topic, somebody said that system.ini was not read in Safe Mode,
> and as this seemed to make sense, and it chimed with what (little)
> I already knew, I didn't bother to check further (although there
> was a small sense of guilt and unease in my mind about not having
> done so - so you're not entirely wrong to chide me). In my first
> post, I did take care to state my assumption explicitly, so that
> it could be challenged if false."
>
> And from another post:
>
> "With respect, I did do some homework before asking my questions.
> I'm sorry if I didn't do enough, but it's not clear to me where
> to look next. (I'm a reasonably experienced Win9x user, but by
> no stretch of the imagination am I an expert.)
>
> I had already read the thread you've referred me to, as well as
> every other relevant thread I could find in the newsgroup since
> 11 Sep 2007. (Of course I can Google further back than that, if
> it's really necessary.)"
>
> Perhaps you can point out whatever flaw it is in my use of English
> which causes you to imagine that I never do any research before
> asking questions, or that I have never thought of using Google,
> or that I imagine I don't make mistakes, or that I can't learn
> from what I'm told by people who are better informed than myself.
>
> I find your reply offensive, in exactly the same way as I was
> offended by glee's unnecessary "Got Google? Use it....." jibe.
>
> Is that any clearer?
>
> Now would you like to explain to me in what way I have been
> offensive to anyone in this newsgroup, to justify these two
> insulting responses I have received?
>
> --
> Angus Rodgers
> (twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
> Contains mild peril

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

If your mobo only has three slots, it can only hold three banks of memory,
max. The reference to four banks of 2700 is probably a generic datum that
applies to the chipset (which COULD have four slots), but not to your
specific board which only has three.

Note that a bank of memory does not equate to a stick. Especially in more
modern boards, two sticks in two slots acting as a single bank of memory.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:jtf1641epqchmaqlc66844dkphr5sf93b1@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:44:25 +0200, Etal
> <look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems.
>>>
>>> There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another
>>> similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely
>>> because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting
>>> some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I
>>> would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what-
>>> ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless
>>> it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.)
>>>
>>
>>Not only the amount of RAM matters, but also its speed. Occupying
>>all three DIMM sockets may lower the the maximum memory-speed
>>usable, depending on what DIMM cards you have.
>>
>> From the Manual :
>>Note: PC2700 maximum to 4 banks only. PC3200 maximum to 2 banks only.
>
> The existing DIMM was PC2700, so I ordered another PC2700, even though
> PC3200 was also available. I don't understand the technical issues,
> but this seemed the course least likely to cause problems. I haven't
> time to look further into it at the moment (late for an appointment -
> just reading and replying quickly!), but one thing I'm not clear about
> is what a "bank" is. As there are only 3 slots for DIMMS, it hardly
> seems likely that one DIMM equals one "bank" (otherwise 4 banks would
> be impossible!). It's logically possible that each of my DIMMs is two
> "banks", so there might not be room for any more! But I can probably
> find this out for myself without having to ask too many questions here.
>
> --
> Angus Rodgers
> (twirlip@ eats spam reply to angusrod@)
> Contains mild peril