Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 

Max Monroe

  • Content count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Max Monroe

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  1. Maybe I'm missing something, but the guy at that forum only says "I have discovered universal solution which is not connected with the values of MaxFileCache and MaxPhysPage. [...] I think the concept could be worth of money for multi boot users." - and that's the end of it; the solution is never revealed, nor pointed to. Thanks for the effort, anyway. As for the upgrade, I'm already multibooting XP; the idea was to try to avoid ditching win98 (hint to BenoitRen - I'm not the enemy), of which I'm quite fond, having had it as my main OS over XP.
  2. You want stone age? Get a computer with an early version of DOS. That's stone age. My oh my, someone is in a cranky mood today... B) We certainly can go back to the Spectrum, the punched tape, or Babbage if you wish, but let's not, shall we? I arbitrarily define as stone age version any software that does not enable me to use features considered standard these days, features that my hardware would otherwise be quite capable to perform. And most software today is a GENERATION beyond their last version that supported win98, usually more than fulfilling the criteria above. I could even live with that, I suppose. But when a properly set-up memory upgrade wrecks the runnability of a quarter of my programs, plays tricks with the audio with the rest, and the best advice I get is to shoot the ACPI too to solve all this, I start having second thoughts, pardon me. So. You say all this isn't very constructive? Excellent observation. Perhabs you have an idea then why is a 128MB Radeon allocating 512MB of virtual address space, given that most people's video adapters take a QUARTER of that...? ...Thought so. Thank you.
  3. 1) This looks as a memory conflict to me. Isn't there any typo? Nope, that's copy-pasted as it came. Anyway, both are kinda "video card" stuff, so I assume it might not be entirely wrong to overlap / be dual allocated / accessed. Actually, I do kinda wonder WHAT THE HECK does the video adapter with THAT kind of memory allocated to it... It's a 128MB ATI Radeon 9600, for Pete's sake... Thanks, but as one of the posters in the other thread noted, I'm not in a hurry to get rid of ACPI (if I understand correctly, the 3 to 4 GB area really matters, and ACPI seems to hold a lousy 20MB there), especially since disabling it in the BIOS would shoot it under my other OS (XP) too, I suppose. As much as I hate that, I might just finally dump '98 alltogether, because I'm stuck with disturbingly-not-current versions of much everything lately, things crash a bit too often for lack of resources and so forth. It has recently come to the point of nobody giving a crap whether their app runs on 98 or not (mostly not), and I'm NOT willing to get stuck in the stone age of software if only that keeps working. Not being able to watch a current MOV clip on the net just about does it...
  4. Did you mean "DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS /NUMHANDLES=96 /TESTMEM:ON /V" ? Well, it didn't work, anyway. Win98 didn't boot, with "no memory". Had to return to 40000 / 65536. Aaaaaanyway, thanks for trying, and here's the RAM dump, perhaps it helps.... 00000000-0009FFFF : System board extension for ACPI BIOS 000A0000-000AFFFF : RADEON 9600 SERIES (Omega 2.6.37) 000B0000-000BFFFF : RADEON 9600 SERIES (Omega 2.6.37) 000C0000-000CCFFF : RADEON 9600 SERIES (Omega 2.6.37) 000CD000-000CFFFF : System board extension for ACPI BIOS 000F0000-000F7FFF : System board extension for ACPI BIOS 000F8000-000FBFFF : System board extension for ACPI BIOS 000FC000-000FFFFF : System board extension for ACPI BIOS 00100000-7FFEFFFF : System board extension for ACPI BIOS 7FFF0000-7FFFFFFF : System board extension for ACPI BIOS C0000000-CFFFFFFF : RADEON 9600 SERIES (Omega 2.6.37) C0000000-DFFFFFFF : VIA CPU to AGP Controller D0000000-DFFFFFFF : RADEON 9600 SERIES - Secondary (Omega 2.6.37) E0000000-E3FFFFFF : VIA Standard Host Bridge E4000000-E43FFFFF : Intel® 536EP Modem E4400000-E441FFFF : RADEON 9600 SERIES (Omega 2.6.37) E4400000-E44FFFFF : VIA CPU to AGP Controller E4420000-E442FFFF : RADEON 9600 SERIES (Omega 2.6.37) E4430000-E443FFFF : RADEON 9600 SERIES - Secondary (Omega 2.6.37) E4500000-E45007FF : PCI OHCI Compliant IEEE 1394 Host Controller E4501000-E45010FF : VIA PCI to USB Enhanced Host Controller E4502000-E45020FF : VIA Rhine II Fast Ethernet Adapter FEC00000-FECFFFFF : System board extension for ACPI BIOS FEE00000-FEEFFFFF : System board extension for ACPI BIOS FFF80000-FFFEFFFF : System board extension for ACPI BIOS FFFF0000-FFFFFFFF : System board extension for ACPI BIOS
  5. Wonderful job translating the article, things are nicely explained in it. However, the original question still stands, and I seem to have the same problem, namely: - I have Win98SE (no patches as far as I know, other than the one for large disk access) on an EPOX EP-8KRAI with an Athlon XP, with 2GB RAM in two sticks (DDR400, PC3200). Used to have 512MB, without problems up to the upgrade; - After the customary MaxPhysPage and MaxFileCache restriction to 40000 (1GB) and 524288, windows boots nicely, no immediate apparent problems - but MS-DOS produces the "not enough memory error", no matter what I do. - I've tried EVERYHING, nothing makes DOS work. - AGP aperture is 64MB; tried to reduce to 32MB: no luck - VCache down to 32768 changes nothing, below that windows starts to refuse to boot (not enough memory). The setting is applied correctly, verifiable with System Monitor. - PhysPage as 60000 (1.5GB) does not boot at all; as 3C000, 30000 or even 20000 (back to 512MB!!!) does not help. windows boots, DOS does not work. The setting is applied correctly, verifiable on every about page and with System Monitor. ...now what? I'd rather not physically remove RAM, because I'm dual booting with XP which is fine thank you and makes good use of it. Any ideas, please...? - Max
  6. Thank you for making it possible, LLXX! Great work! I've got one question though - I've read everything here but I'm only more confused about it: I'm using Win98SE 4.10.2222 A, my original .pdr was v.2222; should I use your 1.0 (2222) or 1.1 (2225) version? Is 2225 your newer version of the 2222 or is it your patch of Microsoft's newer 2225 version? Am I making some terrible mistake using the patched v.2225 instead of my old v.2222 .pdr ? Thanks, Max