Win 98se can't count...

[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.

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

This confirms what I said before. By fragmenting memory, Windows 98 lost enough space, plus possible rounding down, in the reporting function, that it lost the 2MB. I would have to try one of my oldest versions of the Patch, before I fixed the fragmentation problem, to see if it makes a difference and if it gets worse as the amount of RAM increases.

[ShadeTreeLee]

I would suspect that the first meg of missing memory is due to the DMA buffer taking 64K. Further missing memory might be similar buffers relating to USB functions in a similar manner? I noticed my missing meg when I first achieved a working DMA buffer some 10 years ago. You might need a reminder that 95 shipped with broken busmastering as did 98. In order to fix it one has to modify both MSHDC.INF and DISKDRV.INF and then use them to install Windows with. Otherwise your DMA isn't working as it's supposed to.

But I doubt that very much. I believe that motherboad makers were beside themselves when this fiasco happened with 95, they did not stand by doing nothing while 98 came and went with nothing fixed by MS. So they took it upon themselves to provide their own fix to the busmastering problem. They arranged it such that no matter what MS did or didn't do, DMA would work and work good without Windows to hold it's hand. Most motherboards do this. Mine doesn't, Chaintec 5ttm1. I require a wake up call to my hard drives while still in DOS mode at every boot in order to enable DMA transfer or I don't have it and I have horrible data flow without it. Including errors in DOS mode which has lead to many, many installations of Windows before I got the DMA thing straightened out. Not so many Windows installations these days. And one very real reason that the so called 'vxd.fix' actually worked here and worked really good too - my DOS loaded files are often corrupt due to less than stellar performance of my DMA system. Rather my non-DMA system.

But as soon as I had an honest to goodness DMA buffer and it was working - I had one meg less of RAM as reported.

http://www.mdgx.com/98-2.htm#W98DMA