Can't boot into Safe Mode

[Sandy]

Hi again Guys!

Since my last post I've upgraded my mobo to an MSI and have 2x1 GB RAM
modules installed. I quickly learned that Win98 grunts at anything over 1GB
and ideally likes 512MB. However making an adjustment to the System.ini file
as per MS KB article there's no problem with booting normally. However, if I
wanted/had to boot into Safe Mode, then of course the startup files,
presumably including the system.ini, are by-passed resulting in "not enough
memory to initialize windows".

Is there a work-around to this or have I lost this important bit of
functionality? The only other alternative as I see it if something goes wrong
is to then rely on Scanreg /restore.

Cheers,

Sandy.

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:45:02 -0700, Sandy
<Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi again Guys!
>
>Since my last post I've upgraded my mobo to an MSI and have 2x1 GB RAM
>modules installed. I quickly learned that Win98 grunts at anything over 1GB
>and ideally likes 512MB. However making an adjustment to the System.ini file
>as per MS KB article there's no problem with booting normally. However, if I
>wanted/had to boot into Safe Mode, then of course the startup files,
>presumably including the system.ini, are by-passed resulting in "not enough
>memory to initialize windows".
>
>Is there a work-around to this or have I lost this important bit of
>functionality? The only other alternative as I see it if something goes wrong
>is to then rely on Scanreg /restore.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Sandy.
>

Just curious why you need that much ram for Win98?
I got 384 megs and thats plenty.

Now if you were running Vista, you'd probably need to add 10 more gigs
to satisfy their bloatware.

 

[Sandy]

Hi letterman!

Your last comment did make me laugh! One of the reasons why I changed the
motherboard was because my existing system got just so bogged down it
literally ground almost to a standstill. It was an old Socket 7 with just
128MB of RAM. I found it just couldn't cope with modern day demands 'though
the old OS seemed to accept everything I threw at it (hence no upgrade to XP
or Vista). So I wasn't going to mess about and probably went to overkill
with the RAM, it wasn't terribly expensive and appropriate for the mobo and
future proofing a later OS system as & when it becomes necessary.

I didn't realize at the time that 98se doesn't like that amount of RAM
according to MS, but after making the necessary adjustment to the [386ENH]
section of system.ini and I have no problems with it (as yet!). Wanted to go
into Safe Mode to configure some drivers I was reloading (looking for
'ghosts') and found the issue described above.

What do you reckon?

Sandy.

"letterman@invalid.com" wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:45:02 -0700, Sandy
> <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi again Guys!
> >
> >Since my last post I've upgraded my mobo to an MSI and have 2x1 GB RAM
> >modules installed. I quickly learned that Win98 grunts at anything over 1GB
> >and ideally likes 512MB. However making an adjustment to the System.ini file
> >as per MS KB article there's no problem with booting normally. However, if I
> >wanted/had to boot into Safe Mode, then of course the startup files,
> >presumably including the system.ini, are by-passed resulting in "not enough
> >memory to initialize windows".
> >
> >Is there a work-around to this or have I lost this important bit of
> >functionality? The only other alternative as I see it if something goes wrong
> >is to then rely on Scanreg /restore.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Sandy.
> >
>
> Just curious why you need that much ram for Win98?
> I got 384 megs and thats plenty.
>
> Now if you were running Vista, you'd probably need to add 10 more gigs
> to satisfy their bloatware.
>

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Have you tried booting into Safe Mode, or are you just speculating?

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

"Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:81238EE5-C7F0-4490-8DDB-14685C9AD46C@microsoft.com...
> Hi again Guys!
>
> Since my last post I've upgraded my mobo to an MSI and have 2x1 GB RAM
> modules installed. I quickly learned that Win98 grunts at anything over
> 1GB
> and ideally likes 512MB. However making an adjustment to the System.ini
> file
> as per MS KB article there's no problem with booting normally. However, if
> I
> wanted/had to boot into Safe Mode, then of course the startup files,
> presumably including the system.ini, are by-passed resulting in "not
> enough
> memory to initialize windows".
>
> Is there a work-around to this or have I lost this important bit of
> functionality? The only other alternative as I see it if something goes
> wrong
> is to then rely on Scanreg /restore.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sandy.
>
>

 

[Buffalo]

Sandy wrote:
> Hi letterman!
>
> Your last comment did make me laugh! One of the reasons why I
> changed the motherboard was because my existing system got just so
> bogged down it literally ground almost to a standstill. It was an
> old Socket 7 with just 128MB of RAM. I found it just couldn't cope
> with modern day demands 'though the old OS seemed to accept
> everything I threw at it (hence no upgrade to XP or Vista). So I
> wasn't going to mess about and probably went to overkill with the
> RAM, it wasn't terribly expensive and appropriate for the mobo and
> future proofing a later OS system as & when it becomes necessary.
>
> I didn't realize at the time that 98se doesn't like that amount of RAM
> according to MS, but after making the necessary adjustment to the
> [386ENH] section of system.ini and I have no problems with it (as
> yet!). Wanted to go into Safe Mode to configure some drivers I was
> reloading (looking for 'ghosts') and found the issue described above.
>
> What do you reckon?
>
> Sandy.
I reckon that if you are just using Win98se and not any other OS on your PC,
you should remove one of the 1 GB sticks, set the value MaxFileCache=512000
under 386Enh and be done with it.

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:22:28 -0600, "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid>
wrote:

>
>
>Sandy wrote:
>> Hi letterman!
>>
>> Your last comment did make me laugh! One of the reasons why I
>> changed the motherboard was because my existing system got just so
>> bogged down it literally ground almost to a standstill. It was an
>> old Socket 7 with just 128MB of RAM. I found it just couldn't cope
>> with modern day demands 'though the old OS seemed to accept
>> everything I threw at it (hence no upgrade to XP or Vista). So I
>> wasn't going to mess about and probably went to overkill with the
>> RAM, it wasn't terribly expensive and appropriate for the mobo and
>> future proofing a later OS system as & when it becomes necessary.
>>
>> I didn't realize at the time that 98se doesn't like that amount of RAM
>> according to MS, but after making the necessary adjustment to the
>> [386ENH] section of system.ini and I have no problems with it (as
>> yet!). Wanted to go into Safe Mode to configure some drivers I was
>> reloading (looking for 'ghosts') and found the issue described above.
>>
>> What do you reckon?
>>
>> Sandy.
>I reckon that if you are just using Win98se and not any other OS on your PC,
>you should remove one of the 1 GB sticks, set the value MaxFileCache=512000
>under 386Enh and be done with it.
>

I fully agree. You dont need 2 gigs for Win98. Remove one of them,
and save it for an upgrade or sell it to a friend. Win98 originally
ran on computers that only had 32 megs of ram. That's low, but it
worked. My 384megs is fine. (one 256 and one 128 stick). If I
stumble across another 256 for a reasonable price I might upgrade to
512, and I might see a very small improvement. But anything over 1
gig is just not needed, and if Win98 does not allow it, you might
actually be causing problems or slowing the computer down.

 

[Sandy]

Hi again Gary, Letterman & Buffalo!

No speculation, it's a fact! Thanks to the other guys... I'll try taking
out a module to see if that's enough. I would have done that first if there
was no other way but was reluctant to do so since they're hellish difficult
to get back in on an MSI.

Sandy.

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

> Have you tried booting into Safe Mode, or are you just speculating?
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> http://grystmill.com
>
> "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:81238EE5-C7F0-4490-8DDB-14685C9AD46C@microsoft.com...
> > Hi again Guys!
> >
> > Since my last post I've upgraded my mobo to an MSI and have 2x1 GB RAM
> > modules installed. I quickly learned that Win98 grunts at anything over
> > 1GB
> > and ideally likes 512MB. However making an adjustment to the System.ini
> > file
> > as per MS KB article there's no problem with booting normally. However, if
> > I
> > wanted/had to boot into Safe Mode, then of course the startup files,
> > presumably including the system.ini, are by-passed resulting in "not
> > enough
> > memory to initialize windows".
> >
> > Is there a work-around to this or have I lost this important bit of
> > functionality? The only other alternative as I see it if something goes
> > wrong
> > is to then rely on Scanreg /restore.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Sandy.
> >
> >
>
>
>

 

[Buffalo]

letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:22:28 -0600, "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> I fully agree. You dont need 2 gigs for Win98. Remove one of them,
> and save it for an upgrade or sell it to a friend. Win98 originally
> ran on computers that only had 32 megs of ram. That's low, but it
> worked. My 384megs is fine. (one 256 and one 128 stick). If I
> stumble across another 256 for a reasonable price I might upgrade to
> 512, and I might see a very small improvement. But anything over 1
> gig is just not needed, and if Win98 does not allow it, you might
> actually be causing problems or slowing the computer down.


When I upgraded from 512MB to 1 GB of ram on my Win98SE ststem, there was
quite a big improvement in my games, such as Doom2,Quake2, Half-Life and
Unreal Tournament. Other than those games, the speed improvements in
surfing, etc were minimal or non-existant.

 

[Buffalo]

Buffalo wrote:
> I reckon that if you are just using Win98se and not any other OS on
> your PC, you should remove one of the 1 GB sticks, set the value
> MaxFileCache=512000 under 386Enh and be done with it.

ERROR.
I meant to say put the value MaxFileCache=51200 under the [vcache] header in
System.ini, and NOT under the [386Enh] header.
When you use the above setting, it still lets Win98SE use all of the 1GB of
physical ram for programs, it just limits the amt of memory that 98 can use
for 'addressing' or something like that.

BTW, what value did you add to the System.ini file under the [386Enh]
header?
Was it a MaxPhysPage=? setting? If so, you can remove that line when you
remove the 1GB ram stick.
A MaxPhysPage setting of 60000 limits the amt of physical ram that Win98SE
can access to 1.5GB (some 98 systems will work with that much, but not many)
while a setting of 40000 limits the amt of physical ram to 1GB. If you set
that value to below 40000, then you are limiting Win98SE to use even less
than 1GB of physical memory.

 

[Buffalo]

Sandy wrote:
> Hi again Gary, Letterman & Buffalo!
>
> No speculation, it's a fact! Thanks to the other guys... I'll try
> taking out a module to see if that's enough. I would have done that
> first if there was no other way but was reluctant to do so since
> they're hellish difficult to get back in on an MSI.
>
> Sandy.


Buffalo wrote:
> I reckon that if you are just using Win98se and not any other OS on
> your PC, you should remove one of the 1 GB sticks, set the value
> MaxFileCache=512000 under 386Enh and be done with it.

ERROR.
I meant to say put the value MaxFileCache=51200 under the [vcache] header in
System.ini, and NOT under the [386Enh] header.
When you use the above setting, it still lets Win98SE use all of the 1GB of
physical ram for programs, it just limits the amt of memory that 98 can use
for 'addressing' or something like that.

BTW, what value did you add to the System.ini file under the [386Enh]
header?
Was it a MaxPhysPage=? setting? If so, you can remove that line when you
remove the 1GB ram stick.
A MaxPhysPage setting of 60000 limits the amt of physical ram that Win98SE
can access to 1.5GB (some 98 systems will work with that much, but not many)
while a setting of 40000 limits the amt of physical ram to 1GB. If you set
that value to below 40000, then you are limiting Win98SE to use even less
than 1GB of physical memory.





> "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:
>
>> Have you tried booting into Safe Mode, or are you just speculating?
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> http://grystmill.com
>>
>> "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:81238EE5-C7F0-4490-8DDB-14685C9AD46C@microsoft.com...
>>> Hi again Guys!
>>>
>>> Since my last post I've upgraded my mobo to an MSI and have 2x1 GB
>>> RAM modules installed. I quickly learned that Win98 grunts at
>>> anything over 1GB
>>> and ideally likes 512MB. However making an adjustment to the
>>> System.ini file
>>> as per MS KB article there's no problem with booting normally.
>>> However, if I
>>> wanted/had to boot into Safe Mode, then of course the startup files,
>>> presumably including the system.ini, are by-passed resulting in "not
>>> enough
>>> memory to initialize windows".
>>>
>>> Is there a work-around to this or have I lost this important bit of
>>> functionality? The only other alternative as I see it if something
>>> goes wrong
>>> is to then rely on Scanreg /restore.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Sandy.

 

[Sandy]

Noted!

Yes I used the "MaxPhysPage=40000" entry as per the MS KB article. I'll let
you all know how I get on by & by... I'm away for a week so watch this space
when I come back!

All the best,

Sandy

"Buffalo" wrote:

>
>
> Sandy wrote:
> > Hi again Gary, Letterman & Buffalo!
> >
> > No speculation, it's a fact! Thanks to the other guys... I'll try
> > taking out a module to see if that's enough. I would have done that
> > first if there was no other way but was reluctant to do so since
> > they're hellish difficult to get back in on an MSI.
> >
> > Sandy.
>
>
> Buffalo wrote:
> > I reckon that if you are just using Win98se and not any other OS on
> > your PC, you should remove one of the 1 GB sticks, set the value
> > MaxFileCache=512000 under 386Enh and be done with it.
>
> ERROR.
> I meant to say put the value MaxFileCache=51200 under the [vcache] header in
> System.ini, and NOT under the [386Enh] header.
> When you use the above setting, it still lets Win98SE use all of the 1GB of
> physical ram for programs, it just limits the amt of memory that 98 can use
> for 'addressing' or something like that.
>
> BTW, what value did you add to the System.ini file under the [386Enh]
> header?
> Was it a MaxPhysPage=? setting? If so, you can remove that line when you
> remove the 1GB ram stick.
> A MaxPhysPage setting of 60000 limits the amt of physical ram that Win98SE
> can access to 1.5GB (some 98 systems will work with that much, but not many)
> while a setting of 40000 limits the amt of physical ram to 1GB. If you set
> that value to below 40000, then you are limiting Win98SE to use even less
> than 1GB of physical memory.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:
> >
> >> Have you tried booting into Safe Mode, or are you just speculating?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Gary S. Terhune
> >> MS-MVP Shell/User
> >> http://grystmill.com
> >>
> >> "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:81238EE5-C7F0-4490-8DDB-14685C9AD46C@microsoft.com...
> >>> Hi again Guys!
> >>>
> >>> Since my last post I've upgraded my mobo to an MSI and have 2x1 GB
> >>> RAM modules installed. I quickly learned that Win98 grunts at
> >>> anything over 1GB
> >>> and ideally likes 512MB. However making an adjustment to the
> >>> System.ini file
> >>> as per MS KB article there's no problem with booting normally.
> >>> However, if I
> >>> wanted/had to boot into Safe Mode, then of course the startup files,
> >>> presumably including the system.ini, are by-passed resulting in "not
> >>> enough
> >>> memory to initialize windows".
> >>>
> >>> Is there a work-around to this or have I lost this important bit of
> >>> functionality? The only other alternative as I see it if something
> >>> goes wrong
> >>> is to then rely on Scanreg /restore.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Sandy.
>
>
>

 

[Buffalo]

Sandy wrote:
> Noted!
>
> Yes I used the "MaxPhysPage=40000" entry as per the MS KB article.
> I'll let you all know how I get on by & by... I'm away for a week so
> watch this space when I come back!
>
> All the best,
>
> Sandy
>
Be sure you put the value MaxFileCache=512000 under the [vcache] header
in System.ini regardless of the way you limit your physical ram ( ie:
removing 1 stick or ram or using the MaxPhyspage= setting).

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

I only asked because of the way you phrased your initial post. I,
personally, ran a multi-boot machine with 2GB of RAM and Win98 with no
problems, including getting into Safe Mode, but it doesn't surprise me that
others have problems.

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

"Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CFE919C1-7741-4FD5-9097-64B7A0B59244@microsoft.com...
> Hi again Gary, Letterman & Buffalo!
>
> No speculation, it's a fact! Thanks to the other guys... I'll try taking
> out a module to see if that's enough. I would have done that first if
> there
> was no other way but was reluctant to do so since they're hellish
> difficult
> to get back in on an MSI.
>
> Sandy.
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:
>
>> Have you tried booting into Safe Mode, or are you just speculating?
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> http://grystmill.com
>>
>> "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:81238EE5-C7F0-4490-8DDB-14685C9AD46C@microsoft.com...
>> > Hi again Guys!
>> >
>> > Since my last post I've upgraded my mobo to an MSI and have 2x1 GB RAM
>> > modules installed. I quickly learned that Win98 grunts at anything over
>> > 1GB
>> > and ideally likes 512MB. However making an adjustment to the System.ini
>> > file
>> > as per MS KB article there's no problem with booting normally. However,
>> > if
>> > I
>> > wanted/had to boot into Safe Mode, then of course the startup files,
>> > presumably including the system.ini, are by-passed resulting in "not
>> > enough
>> > memory to initialize windows".
>> >
>> > Is there a work-around to this or have I lost this important bit of
>> > functionality? The only other alternative as I see it if something goes
>> > wrong
>> > is to then rely on Scanreg /restore.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Sandy.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>

 

[glee]

I asked Sandy the same thing in the AumHa forums, where she/he asked the same
question:
http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34871


"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:edQD7uo7IHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I only asked because of the way you phrased your initial post. I, personally, ran a
>multi-boot machine with 2GB of RAM and Win98 with no problems, including getting
>into Safe Mode, but it doesn't surprise me that others have problems.
>
>
> "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CFE919C1-7741-4FD5-9097-64B7A0B59244@microsoft.com...
>> Hi again Gary, Letterman & Buffalo!
>>
>> No speculation, it's a fact! Thanks to the other guys... I'll try taking
>> out a module to see if that's enough. I would have done that first if there
>> was no other way but was reluctant to do so since they're hellish difficult
>> to get back in on an MSI.
>>
>> Sandy.
>>
>> "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:
>>
>>> Have you tried booting into Safe Mode, or are you just speculating?
>>>

>>> "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:81238EE5-C7F0-4490-8DDB-14685C9AD46C@microsoft.com...
>>> > Hi again Guys!
>>> >
>>> > Since my last post I've upgraded my mobo to an MSI and have 2x1 GB RAM
>>> > modules installed. I quickly learned that Win98 grunts at anything over
>>> > 1GB
>>> > and ideally likes 512MB. However making an adjustment to the System.ini
>>> > file
>>> > as per MS KB article there's no problem with booting normally. However, if
>>> > I
>>> > wanted/had to boot into Safe Mode, then of course the startup files,
>>> > presumably including the system.ini, are by-passed resulting in "not
>>> > enough
>>> > memory to initialize windows".
>>> >
>>> > Is there a work-around to this or have I lost this important bit of
>>> > functionality? The only other alternative as I see it if something goes
>>> > wrong
>>> > is to then rely on Scanreg /restore.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> >
>>> > Sandy.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

I keep thinking there should be some way to limit the amount of RAM seen
other than by the use of [386Enh]. I also wondered why I didn't have any
trouble in Safe Mode, and all I can think is that I'd clocked it down as
much as possible because it was otherwise unstable even in WinXP. I was
doing mostly still-photo editing using Photoshop, and working with rather
large images at times (2GB+) and so I didn't care about speed, really, but I
maxed out the amount of RAM for that board.

My new "main machine" (well, it's a year and a half old, now) won't run 9x
no how no way, and I no longer have a test machine with modern capacities
(best one is an HP 5735), though I expect to inherit a couple of machines
from the right era (2002, 2003), soon. I can only hope that the hardware
issues, whatever they are, can be fixed or gotten round. One is my Dad's and
one is my brother's. I got the calls within days of each other. Brother's
machine was rather easy to initially diagnose -- it goes into repetitive
reboot mode just running the installation CD. Never did that before, so....

I think Dad's is simply an overheating video card, but he sounds in the mood
for a new machine, so....

It would be nice to have my test machine able to run anything from DOS to
Vista (fingers crossed), and I'd rather not have more than one extra machine
in my cockpit. It's already quite crowded.

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

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:OssexZs7IHA.4112@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I asked Sandy the same thing in the AumHa forums, where she/he asked the
>same question:
> http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34871
>
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:edQD7uo7IHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I only asked because of the way you phrased your initial post. I,
>>personally, ran a multi-boot machine with 2GB of RAM and Win98 with no
>>problems, including getting into Safe Mode, but it doesn't surprise me
>>that others have problems.
>>
>>
>> "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:CFE919C1-7741-4FD5-9097-64B7A0B59244@microsoft.com...
>>> Hi again Gary, Letterman & Buffalo!
>>>
>>> No speculation, it's a fact! Thanks to the other guys... I'll try
>>> taking
>>> out a module to see if that's enough. I would have done that first if
>>> there
>>> was no other way but was reluctant to do so since they're hellish
>>> difficult
>>> to get back in on an MSI.
>>>
>>> Sandy.
>>>
>>> "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you tried booting into Safe Mode, or are you just speculating?
>>>>
>
>>>> "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:81238EE5-C7F0-4490-8DDB-14685C9AD46C@microsoft.com...
>>>> > Hi again Guys!
>>>> >
>>>> > Since my last post I've upgraded my mobo to an MSI and have 2x1 GB
>>>> > RAM
>>>> > modules installed. I quickly learned that Win98 grunts at anything
>>>> > over
>>>> > 1GB
>>>> > and ideally likes 512MB. However making an adjustment to the
>>>> > System.ini
>>>> > file
>>>> > as per MS KB article there's no problem with booting normally.
>>>> > However, if
>>>> > I
>>>> > wanted/had to boot into Safe Mode, then of course the startup files,
>>>> > presumably including the system.ini, are by-passed resulting in "not
>>>> > enough
>>>> > memory to initialize windows".
>>>> >
>>>> > Is there a work-around to this or have I lost this important bit of
>>>> > functionality? The only other alternative as I see it if something
>>>> > goes
>>>> > wrong
>>>> > is to then rely on Scanreg /restore.
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheers,
>>>> >
>>>> > Sandy.
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
> http://dts-l.net/
> http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
>
>

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:17:48 -0600, "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid>
wrote:

>
>
>letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:22:28 -0600, "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> I fully agree. You dont need 2 gigs for Win98. Remove one of them,
>> and save it for an upgrade or sell it to a friend. Win98 originally
>> ran on computers that only had 32 megs of ram. That's low, but it
>> worked. My 384megs is fine. (one 256 and one 128 stick). If I
>> stumble across another 256 for a reasonable price I might upgrade to
>> 512, and I might see a very small improvement. But anything over 1
>> gig is just not needed, and if Win98 does not allow it, you might
>> actually be causing problems or slowing the computer down.
>
>
>When I upgraded from 512MB to 1 GB of ram on my Win98SE ststem, there was
>quite a big improvement in my games, such as Doom2,Quake2, Half-Life and
>Unreal Tournament. Other than those games, the speed improvements in
>surfing, etc were minimal or non-existant.
>

OK, I dont do any games at all, just online stuff, common office type
programs and some photo editing. Thats probably why I never noticed
anything change.

 

[Sandy]

Hi Gary, Glee & Buffalo,

I'm back! and just to say I'm sorted thanks to you guys. I took out a stick
of RAM, reset the MaxFileCache and have to say I've got a more stable machine
that will boot into Safe Mode. Interesting to see the discussion that
followed while I've been away! Once again I'm indebted to you chaps, you do
a marvellous job. By the way, I'm a He in Mid Wales (for future reference).
As Glee spotted my catch-all approach, I'll go to the other forum now & sign
myself off.

Thanks and all the best,

Sandy

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

> I keep thinking there should be some way to limit the amount of RAM seen
> other than by the use of [386Enh]. I also wondered why I didn't have any
> trouble in Safe Mode, and all I can think is that I'd clocked it down as
> much as possible because it was otherwise unstable even in WinXP. I was
> doing mostly still-photo editing using Photoshop, and working with rather
> large images at times (2GB+) and so I didn't care about speed, really, but I
> maxed out the amount of RAM for that board.
>
> My new "main machine" (well, it's a year and a half old, now) won't run 9x
> no how no way, and I no longer have a test machine with modern capacities
> (best one is an HP 5735), though I expect to inherit a couple of machines
> from the right era (2002, 2003), soon. I can only hope that the hardware
> issues, whatever they are, can be fixed or gotten round. One is my Dad's and
> one is my brother's. I got the calls within days of each other. Brother's
> machine was rather easy to initially diagnose -- it goes into repetitive
> reboot mode just running the installation CD. Never did that before, so....
>
> I think Dad's is simply an overheating video card, but he sounds in the mood
> for a new machine, so....
>
> It would be nice to have my test machine able to run anything from DOS to
> Vista (fingers crossed), and I'd rather not have more than one extra machine
> in my cockpit. It's already quite crowded.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> http://grystmill.com
>
> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:OssexZs7IHA.4112@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >I asked Sandy the same thing in the AumHa forums, where she/he asked the
> >same question:
> > http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34871
> >
> >
> > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> > news:edQD7uo7IHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >>I only asked because of the way you phrased your initial post. I,
> >>personally, ran a multi-boot machine with 2GB of RAM and Win98 with no
> >>problems, including getting into Safe Mode, but it doesn't surprise me
> >>that others have problems.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:CFE919C1-7741-4FD5-9097-64B7A0B59244@microsoft.com...
> >>> Hi again Gary, Letterman & Buffalo!
> >>>
> >>> No speculation, it's a fact! Thanks to the other guys... I'll try
> >>> taking
> >>> out a module to see if that's enough. I would have done that first if
> >>> there
> >>> was no other way but was reluctant to do so since they're hellish
> >>> difficult
> >>> to get back in on an MSI.
> >>>
> >>> Sandy.
> >>>
> >>> "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Have you tried booting into Safe Mode, or are you just speculating?
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:81238EE5-C7F0-4490-8DDB-14685C9AD46C@microsoft.com...
> >>>> > Hi again Guys!
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Since my last post I've upgraded my mobo to an MSI and have 2x1 GB
> >>>> > RAM
> >>>> > modules installed. I quickly learned that Win98 grunts at anything
> >>>> > over
> >>>> > 1GB
> >>>> > and ideally likes 512MB. However making an adjustment to the
> >>>> > System.ini
> >>>> > file
> >>>> > as per MS KB article there's no problem with booting normally.
> >>>> > However, if
> >>>> > I
> >>>> > wanted/had to boot into Safe Mode, then of course the startup files,
> >>>> > presumably including the system.ini, are by-passed resulting in "not
> >>>> > enough
> >>>> > memory to initialize windows".
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Is there a work-around to this or have I lost this important bit of
> >>>> > functionality? The only other alternative as I see it if something
> >>>> > goes
> >>>> > wrong
> >>>> > is to then rely on Scanreg /restore.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Cheers,
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Sandy.
> > --
> > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
> > http://dts-l.net/
> > http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
> >
> >
>
>
>

 

[Buffalo]

Sandy wrote:
> Hi Gary, Glee & Buffalo,
>
> I'm back! and just to say I'm sorted thanks to you guys. I took out
> a stick of RAM, reset the MaxFileCache and have to say I've got a
> more stable machine that will boot into Safe Mode. Interesting to
> see the discussion that followed while I've been away! Once again
> I'm indebted to you chaps, you do a marvellous job. By the way, I'm
> a He in Mid Wales (for future reference). As Glee spotted my
> catch-all approach, I'll go to the other forum now & sign myself off.
>
> Thanks and all the best,
>
> Sandy
>
Thanks for posting back with what you did.
Enjoy.

 

[ols]

Ok I'm getting the same error \iosubsys subdirectory is corrupt, or the
system is low on memory. I understand I need to adding a "maxfilecache" line
to the vcache section of System.ini. But How do I add the information at the
c: prompt?
ols


"glee" wrote:

> I asked Sandy the same thing in the AumHa forums, where she/he asked the same
> question:
> http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34871
>
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:edQD7uo7IHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >I only asked because of the way you phrased your initial post. I, personally, ran a
> >multi-boot machine with 2GB of RAM and Win98 with no problems, including getting
> >into Safe Mode, but it doesn't surprise me that others have problems.
> >
> >
> > "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:CFE919C1-7741-4FD5-9097-64B7A0B59244@microsoft.com...
> >> Hi again Gary, Letterman & Buffalo!
> >>
> >> No speculation, it's a fact! Thanks to the other guys... I'll try taking
> >> out a module to see if that's enough. I would have done that first if there
> >> was no other way but was reluctant to do so since they're hellish difficult
> >> to get back in on an MSI.
> >>
> >> Sandy.
> >>
> >> "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Have you tried booting into Safe Mode, or are you just speculating?
> >>>
>
> >>> "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:81238EE5-C7F0-4490-8DDB-14685C9AD46C@microsoft.com...
> >>> > Hi again Guys!
> >>> >
> >>> > Since my last post I've upgraded my mobo to an MSI and have 2x1 GB RAM
> >>> > modules installed. I quickly learned that Win98 grunts at anything over
> >>> > 1GB
> >>> > and ideally likes 512MB. However making an adjustment to the System.ini
> >>> > file
> >>> > as per MS KB article there's no problem with booting normally. However, if
> >>> > I
> >>> > wanted/had to boot into Safe Mode, then of course the startup files,
> >>> > presumably including the system.ini, are by-passed resulting in "not
> >>> > enough
> >>> > memory to initialize windows".
> >>> >
> >>> > Is there a work-around to this or have I lost this important bit of
> >>> > functionality? The only other alternative as I see it if something goes
> >>> > wrong
> >>> > is to then rely on Scanreg /restore.
> >>> >
> >>> > Cheers,
> >>> >
> >>> > Sandy.
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
> http://dts-l.net/
> http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
>
>
>

 

[PCR]

ols wrote:
| Ok I'm getting the same error \iosubsys subdirectory is corrupt, or
| the system is low on memory. I understand I need to adding a
| "maxfilecache" line to the vcache section of System.ini. But How do I
| add the information at the c: prompt?

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kben-us304943&Product=w98
Computer May Reboot Continuously with More Than 1.5 GB of RAM

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kbEN-USq184447
Insufficient Memory

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kbEN-US253912
"Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed

(1) "START button, Run, MSConfig, System.ini tab, [vcache] section".
Don't just open the section click it to highlight.
(2) Click the "New" button
(3) Type in: "MaxFileCache=524288"
(4) Click "Apply" and "OK".
(5) Reboot, IF that much (512 KB) is already available.
OTHERWISE, just shut down & add the RAM

JUST, don't exceed usable RAM, as seen at "START, Run, MSInfo32"...
376MB RAM, it says for me, because Video has grabbed away 8 MB.

| ols
|
|
| "glee" wrote:
|
|> I asked Sandy the same thing in the AumHa forums, where she/he asked
|> the same question:
|> http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34871
|>
|>
|> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
|> news:edQD7uo7IHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
|> >I only asked because of the way you phrased your initial post. I,
|> >personally, ran a multi-boot machine with 2GB of RAM and Win98 with
|> >no problems, including getting into Safe Mode, but it doesn't
|> >surprise me that others have problems.
|> >
|> >
|> > "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
|> > news:CFE919C1-7741-4FD5-9097-64B7A0B59244@microsoft.com...
|> >> Hi again Gary, Letterman & Buffalo!
|> >>
|> >> No speculation, it's a fact! Thanks to the other guys... I'll
|> >> try taking out a module to see if that's enough. I would have
|> >> done that first if there was no other way but was reluctant to do
|> >> so since they're hellish difficult to get back in on an MSI.
|> >>
|> >> Sandy.
|> >>
|> >> "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:
|> >>
|> >>> Have you tried booting into Safe Mode, or are you just
|> >>> speculating?
|> >>>
|>
|> >>> "Sandy" <Sandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
|> >>> news:81238EE5-C7F0-4490-8DDB-14685C9AD46C@microsoft.com...
|> >>> > Hi again Guys!
|> >>> >
|> >>> > Since my last post I've upgraded my mobo to an MSI and have
|> >>> > 2x1 GB RAM modules installed. I quickly learned that Win98
|> >>> > grunts at anything over 1GB
|> >>> > and ideally likes 512MB. However making an adjustment to the
|> >>> > System.ini file
|> >>> > as per MS KB article there's no problem with booting normally.
|> >>> > However, if I
|> >>> > wanted/had to boot into Safe Mode, then of course the startup
|> >>> > files, presumably including the system.ini, are by-passed
|> >>> > resulting in "not enough
|> >>> > memory to initialize windows".
|> >>> >
|> >>> > Is there a work-around to this or have I lost this important
|> >>> > bit of functionality? The only other alternative as I see it
|> >>> > if something goes wrong
|> >>> > is to then rely on Scanreg /restore.
|> >>> >
|> >>> > Cheers,
|> >>> >
|> >>> > Sandy.
|> --
|> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
|> http://dts-l.net/
|> http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm

--
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