galahs

Yeah, maybe its one of the patches? I don't recall any of the unofficial patches addressing Virtual Memory / Swap File?

I have had my swap file increase, then decrease itself (on reboot I think?) I'm using Win98SE

I don't think Windows gives back SwapFile Disk space until it starts to run out of Hard Disk space. But it should reduce next time you restart the computer. You can use Cacheman 5.50 to monitor your SwapDisk space usage and other RAM resources.

No real complaints from me Personally I don't think you wouldn't often need a MaxFileCache value over 255MB (unless operating as a FileServer) but other than that the values look good!

I have my swap file set with a 200MB minimum and no fixed maximum and I don't think I have ever seen it grow bigger than 200MB. Try setting a minimum value but leave the maximum at its highest (default) setting

Mate you'd be fine with any of those Hardware setups

I noticed on some newer AGP motherboards they can allow an AGP Apperature of up to 512MB!!!! If you chose that you would have already hit Windows98 Memory Address limitation. Remember, you AGP Apperature and and MaxFileCache value when combined, cannot = more than 512MB!!!

Its a personal choice. I like Win98SE. Very mature product in the Win9x lineup. Basically Win98 with a major service pack! For that reason it is still well supported by a dedicated online community. WinMe had many new features that never really got a good shake down. Microsoft moved on before it had time to do so. Win95 is the way to go if you want the a no fuss Win9x OS especially if you dread Internet Explorer. I install: Win98SE + Maximum Decim Cumulative Update IE6 SP1 + Maximus Decim Cumulative Update DirectX 9.0c December 2006 Windows Media Player 9 I use Firefox 2 as my browser, Thunderbird for my Email and I couldn't be happier!

I have tried to download this file over the last few days and I'm always greeted with the message: Grrrrrrr!

If you make sensible decisions about what files you download onto your computer, Windows98 is unlikely to pick up any viruses or trojans. But by just connecting Win2000 out of the box (no firewall) to the internet, I guarantee you'll get trojans installed without you having to even visit a website! Note: This doesn't mean I don't recommend using a Firewall with Win98. Use one! (Hardware or Software)

Also in case you haven't seen it. There is a new modified Forceware driver that offers Beta support the nVIDIA 7 and 8 series AGP and PCI-E cards. http://www.msfn.org/board/NVidia_drivers_8269_t97140.html

Video Ram is handled by the device driver so it doesn't really affect Win9x. What could impact Win9x is the AGP Apperature size set in the bios. (Amount of system RAM that can be used to store video textures) You haver to make sure the Apperature size + your MaxFileCache doesn't equal more than 512MB Read more about FileCache and Apperature here. http://www.msfn.org/board/VCACHE_fix_attempt_t105373.html

Win98 with a pretty standard install is 150MB

The 6 series was the last official card supported on Win9x be Nvidia. But I think people have managed to get 7 series cards to work with an 80 series Forceware driver.

It's hard to say what to recommend as it depends on so many factors. I 'personally' would be deciding between Windows 98SE and Windows 2000. Windows 2000 SP4 is good as most software still supports it and I consider it to be very rock solid and stable. It also has good support for laptops. It's downside is it has a critical security vulnerabilities and needs a good firewall installed. It also needs more Hard Disk space than Win98. Win98SE will run faster than 2000, doesn't have as high an overhead for RAM and is backwards compatible with older software. Its biggest downfall is it is now no longer supported by Microsoft so you're on your own but you do have MSFN forums to help you The other thing you should consider is what drivers you have available.

Awesome work again mate But why RapidShare

That is exactly my thought. Having lots of un-used RAM is wasted RAM. Windows FileCache is used to speed up Windows. The more RAM you allow it to use the faster your windows experience will be. And Windows is clever enough that if a program your running needs more RAM to run a program, it will decrease the size of its FileCache. That is why I still think users are setting MaxFileCache too low. The other thing we need to clarrify is the effect of VideoMemory on memory address allocation. How does using a graphics card with a large memory (64MB +) affect the highest allowable MaxFileCache value?

I had Win98 installed on my Pentium 4 which has 1.5GB of RAM. I got the famous "Insufficient memory to initialize windows. Quit one or more memory-resident programs or remove unnecessary utilities from your Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files, and restart your computer." So I used the MaxPhysPage=40000 line limiting the computer to using just under 1GB and the computer ran without a problem. That was using default system.ini values (No MaxFileCache, no conservativeswapfile settings). Based on further reading I now believe I should have added the MaxFileCache=261120 (or something less than 512000) but I must not have had Windows use enough DiskCache to run into this lack of memory addresses problem. So my chart would read the following RAM ... MaxFileCache 8 . . . . . leave as default 16 . . . . leave as default 32 . . . . leave as default 48 . . . . leave as default 64 . . . . 49152 + ConservativeSwapfileUsage=0 128 . . . 98304 + ConservativeSwapfileUsage=0 256 . . . 184320 + ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 512 . . . 261120 + ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1 768 . . . 261120 + ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1 1024 . . 261120 + ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1 1536 . . 261120 + ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1 2048 . . ??? I would leave the ChuckSize as the default 512. I have seen no proof that larger chuck sizes increase performance. I would have NO MinFileCache value. I picked 261120 to allow enough memory addresses for users with a 256MB AGP graphics cards. Also I don't think too many people would see much benefit of having a diskcache over 255 MB. .

This website: http://adriansrojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz.htm is the first one I have found that actually done some benchmark testing to see the improvement using MaxFileCache and Chunksize settings. The conclusion was the stock 512 byte chunk size was the best performer and that limiting the MaxFileCache didn't improve performance.

Why are your MaxFileCache settings so low? Why not 70% of the available RAM? I also don't see the point of specifying a minimum cache size.

Couldn't hurt... more importantly make sure you have the latest flash version Go here and make sure you have at least 9.0.47 http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/about/ Note: Flash 9 websites need a computer with MMX capabilities to work properly. Pentium with MMX, Pentium 2, Athalon with 3Dnow or higher!

Further testing has proven that theory wrong. I just had it peak at 110.2MB But the fact that Windows is dedicating that much DiskCache makes me think 65535 is a tad too small a limit or am I missing something?

Interesting I did the test again, trying to overload the system with running apps and again the DiskCache peaked at 103.8MB before shrinking! Could it be that 103.8MB is a built in limit for systems with 256MB of RAM? I'll carry out some more testing to see if I can replicate this behaviour.

Does the October 2007 Internet Explorer Cumulative Update have any relevance for IE6SP1 on Win98