Win 98se can't count...

[triger49]

Hi;

This is not a matter of any great consequence, just trying assuage my curiosity.

Happened upon a couple sticks 512 meg ram for my DFI Ca64-en mothboard.

Bumped it to 1 gig ...which it happily acknowledged without complaint. I dual boot

98se and Win ME, this is the weird part. Bios, SIW, Everest ultimate and Windows ME

all report 1GIG ....WIndows 98se reports 1022k., both on the property sheet for My Computer

and Msinfo32. ...Any body offer a clue?

Jake

[herbalist]

I don't have an explanation for it, but mine does the same thing. I have 1GB RAM, 100MB of which is used for a ramdrive, loaded via autoexec.bat. The property sheet on mine reports 922MB. I never paid any real attention to this so I've no idea how long it's been displaying a low value or if it always has.

[triger49]

I don't have an explanation for it, but mine does the same thing. I have 1GB RAM, 100MB of which is used for a ramdrive, loaded via autoexec.bat. The property sheet on mine reports 922MB. I never paid any real attention to this so I've no idea how long it's been displaying a low value or if it always has.

Phew, thank you, Kind sir for the confirmation. The whole time

I was typing the original post, the thought kept coming to me,

"Nobody is gonna believe this"....

Jake

[rloew]

I believe it is related to the sloppy mapping of Physical Memory done by Windows 98 during Startup. It disappears when my RAM Limitation Patch is run.

Windows ME uses a better algorithm.

In newer Motherboards, 1 or 2MB can disappear because the BIOS reserves the space for SMM Code and/or USB Emulation.

Edited July 2, 2011 by rloew

[dencorso]

Precisely so. Win 98 will report up to about 1160 GiB max, no mater how much RAM you've got, unless you use the RAM Limitation Patch. But with 1 GiB RAM you really don't need it. the difference between what it sees and what you've got is too little. For some more info read this and this (notice that, at the high end, the memory amount reported was 2 GiB below what I actually allowed it to see, consistently). The latter seems to be the exact same finding as you've just reported, in somewhat different conditions. And it's probably due to memory set aside by the BIOS, as RLoew rightly pointed out.

[rloew]

Precisely so. Win 98 will report up to about 1160 GiB max, no mater how much RAM you've got, unless you use the RAM Limitation Patch. But with 1 GiB RAM you really don't need it. the difference between what it sees and what you've got is too little. For some more info read this and this (notice that, at the high end, the memory amount reported was 2 GiB below what I actually allowed it to see, consistently). The latter seems to be the exact same finding as you've just reported, in somewhat different conditions. And it's probably due to memory set aside by the BIOS, as RLoew rightly pointed out.

1160 GiB is not the limit how much Windows 98 can report, it is the limit of how much RAM it can USE without Patching. My Patch does not fix the report generator. The 2MiB deviation triger49 reported is most likely due to the fragmentation of memory mapping I mentioned before. If there is any question, he can try the Demo of my Patch. His motherboard is not new enough to have the 2MiB+ of reserved space. I have only seen it in my GA-MA785 Motherboard. Your 2GiB deviation is due to the use of MaxPhysPage to limit what Windows uses. RAMDisks have the same result as they limit what Windows sees. The report shows how much RAM Windows can use.

Edited July 2, 2011 by rloew

[dencorso]

As you know, I now use the RAM Limitation Patch, so I'm not willing to remove it, and remove some of the RAM (I don't even own 512 MiB sticks anymore) so as to be able to reproduce my findings in that old post of mine. However, what I thought striking at that time (and still do) is that, with 1.5 GiB of installed RAM, no matter what MaxPhysPage value I set, above MaxPhysPage = 48500 (1157 MiB), it always resulted in Windows seeing 2 MiB less.

Below is the report of Geoff Chappell's FWMEMMAP, with the current 3 GiB of RAM installed, in case it helps elucidating things. It was obtained under Win PE 2.1 (the Vista PE), because FWMEMMAP requires Vista at least to run. The last three lines are comments I added, and not part of FWMEMMAP's report, the last line reflecting what Win XP SP3 sees as total memory.

Map of firmware memory ranges (from int 15h function E820h)

       Address               Size              Type
=================== =================== =================
0x00000000`00000000 0x00000000`0009D800  1 (memory)
0x00000000`0009D800 0x00000000`00002800  2 (reserved)
0x00000000`000F0000 0x00000000`00010000  2 (reserved)
0x00000000`00100000 0x00000000`BFEFB000  1 (memory)
0x00000000`BFFFB000 0x00000000`00004000  3 (ACPI Reclaim)
0x00000000`BFFFF000 0x00000000`00001000  4 (ACPI NVS)
0x00000000`FEC00000 0x00000000`00001000  2 (reserved)
0x00000000`FEE00000 0x00000000`00001000  2 (reserved)
0x00000000`FFFF0000 0x00000000`00010000  2 (reserved)

Summary (in MB, ignoring partial MB):

Total memory:               3071
Memory above 4GB:              0


Total memory: 	3145330 with reclaim
(in Kib)        3145314 without reclaim
		3145236 reported by XP

[rloew]

As you know, I now use the RAM Limitation Patch, so I'm not willing to remove it, and remove some of the RAM (I don't even own 512 MiB sticks anymore) so as to be able to reproduce my findings in that old post of mine. However, what I thought striking at that time (and still do) is that, with 1.5 GiB of installed RAM, no matter what MaxPhysPage value I set, above MaxPhysPage = 48500 (1157 MiB), it always resulted in Windows seeing 2 MiB less.

Below is the report of Geoff Chappell's FWMEMMAP, with the current 3 GiB of RAM installed, in case it helps elucidating things. It was obtained under Win PE 2.1 (the Vista PE), because FWMEMMAP requires Vista at least to run. The last three lines are comments I added, and not part of FWMEMMAP's report, the last line reflecting what Win XP SP3 sees as total memory.

Map of firmware memory ranges (from int 15h function E820h)

       Address               Size              Type
=================== =================== =================
0x00000000`00000000 0x00000000`0009D800  1 (memory)
0x00000000`0009D800 0x00000000`00002800  2 (reserved)
0x00000000`000F0000 0x00000000`00010000  2 (reserved)
0x00000000`00100000 0x00000000`BFEFB000  1 (memory)
0x00000000`BFFFB000 0x00000000`00004000  3 (ACPI Reclaim)
0x00000000`BFFFF000 0x00000000`00001000  4 (ACPI NVS)
0x00000000`FEC00000 0x00000000`00001000  2 (reserved)
0x00000000`FEE00000 0x00000000`00001000  2 (reserved)
0x00000000`FFFF0000 0x00000000`00010000  2 (reserved)

Summary (in MB, ignoring partial MB):

Total memory:               3071
Memory above 4GB:              0


Total memory: 	3145330 with reclaim
(in Kib)        3145314 without reclaim
		3145236 reported by XP

Your Motherboard can't be very recent. It only reserved 20K (BFFFB000-C0000000).

Compare that with my MA785:

Memory Range 00000000 - bfdf0000

START =   00000000  LENGTH =   0009f800  TYPE = Memory
START =   000f0000  LENGTH =   00010000  TYPE = Reserved
START =   fec00000  LENGTH =   01400000  TYPE = Reserved
START =   e0000000  LENGTH =   10000000  TYPE = Reserved
START =   0009f800  LENGTH =   00000800  TYPE = Reserved
START =   bfe00000  LENGTH =   00100000  TYPE = Reserved
START =   00100000  LENGTH =   bfcf0000  TYPE = Memory
START =   bfdf3000  LENGTH =   0000d000  TYPE = ACPI Reclaim
START =   bfdf0000  LENGTH =   00003000  TYPE = ACPI NVS
START = 1:00000000  LENGTH = 3:40000000  TYPE = Memory

It reserves 2MB + 64K. The SMM Memory (BFF00000-C0000000) is not even listed.

I used my BIOSMEM Program to create this report. It works with DOS and Windows 9x. It shows both the E801H and E820H results from INT 15H.

Edited July 4, 2011 by rloew

[triger49]

ok ....

Was doing some tinkering here...using Everest Ultimate.

It (Everest) shows two different ram reports...one they call

"System Memory" and the other "Physical Memory". System memory

always reflects accurately what is installed, both in Windows 98

and Windows ME.

I tryed 256 meg increments...(ie 256, 512, 768 and 1024)

In each case with both versions of windows,Physical Memory

showed 1 meg less than System memory till I reached 1024meg

where Windows 98 showed 2 meg less. Also that's the only case where

Windows 98 system property sheet showed the Physical memory

instead of the System memory.(1022 meg).

One thing that surprised me, booted to Dos and used the mem

command...it reports 1,048,2xx K....with somewhere around ~300k

in use. The last 2 digits are trunciated so I used the /debug

switch just see what it was reporting.

I know, I know...but just had to satisfy my curiosity

Jake

[dencorso]

Also that's the only case where

Windows 98 system property sheet showed the Physical memory

instead of the System memory.(1022 meg).

How so? 1022 MiB *is* the System Memory, *and* Win 98 can use all of it without any patching.

Now, the Physical Memory must have been 1024 MiB, or you do have a really unusual memory stick!

[triger49]

Also that's the only case where

Windows 98 system property sheet showed the Physical memory

instead of the System memory.(1022 meg).

How so? 1022 MiB *is* the System Memory, *and* Win 98 can use all of it without any patching.

Now, the Physical Memory must have been 1024 MiB, or you do have a really unusual memory stick!

Hi ;

first things first , thanks to you and rloew for taking the time to respond...

The name thing was just a way to differentiate between what went from my hand in to the computer,

and what Windows was actually reporting. The result was that Windows Me and 98se both saw the

same thing until somewhere between 768 meg and 1024 meg. I had to 2 sticks of 512 meg and 4 sticks

of 256meg which afforded me the luxury of several combinations, just in case one stick was a culprit...

Like I said from the start, this is strickly a matter of curiosity ...and it was fueled by this article on Raymond Chen's Blog.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2003/08/14/54640.aspx

Cheers

Jake

[dencorso]

Ah, good old Raymond Chen!

I think the 2 MiB less effect kicks in, when you're above some threshold but I saw it higher than you. Whatever it is, it does exist, and may be hardware dependent.

BTW, What's the MaxFileCache value you used throughout your tests?

If you didn't set it then, set it now to 524288, reboot and tell me what happens.

[triger49]

Ah, good old Raymond Chen!

I think the 2 MiB less effect kicks in, when you're above some threshold but I saw it higher than you. Whatever it is, it does exist, and may be hardware dependent.

BTW, What's the MaxFileCache value you used throughout your tests?

If you didn't set it then, set it now to 524288, reboot and tell me what happens.

Hi Den;

Settings I used during testing....

[vcache]

MinFileCache=32768

MaxFileCache=262144

ChunkSize=4096

Bumping MaxFileCache to 524288 had no apparent effect.

One oddity I happened upon....

If I use the setting MaxPhysPage=40000

On the next reboot, under msconfig>advanced

the setting for "Limit memory to 999 meg" is checked.

But the system still reports 1022 meg.

Under Windows Me, if that setting is checked, it reports 999 meg.

Makes me wonder if something is amiss or a corrupted DLL?

Jake

[rloew]

In Windows 98, install my Demo Patch, reboot, note the result and immediately uninstall and reboot.

In Windows ME, install my Demo Patch in Safe Mode, reboot, note the result and immediately uninstall and reboot.

[triger49]

In Windows 98, install my Demo Patch, reboot, note the result and immediately uninstall and reboot.

In Windows ME, install my Demo Patch in Safe Mode, reboot, note the result and immediately uninstall and reboot.

Hi;

Thanks for taking the time to reply...

Under Windows ME, no apparent change...and Everest reported the usual 1024 meg installed...1023 meg System

Under 98se ....patch caused everything to report identical Windows ME including in Everest...(both system property

sheet and Msinfo32 reported 1024 meg)

Thanks

Jake