Running Windows 9X/ME with over 4GB RAM installed WITHOUT using Windows System Files Patching or Tweaking

[rloew]

256MB is the maximum amount of space that can be used by DOS Boxes. The System Arena is 1024MiB. I said you used 96.5% of the System Arena Space. Your 8 DOS Boxes used up the rest.

The vast majority of the space got locked up by the File Cache. By default, it uses some percentage of the available RAM up to an absolute limit of 800MiB.

Needless to say, you can't get 64 DOS Boxes without reducing File Cache as 800MiB + 256MiB > 1024MiB. This doesn't even consider the rest of the Operating System.

@jaclaz  I have locked Icons for 6 DOS Boxes. On occasion I have used even more. 64 may be a bit much, but I already have a clue on how I might be able to raise that limit. The BSOD was very informative.

[jaclaz]

3 hours ago, rloew said:

@jaclaz  I have locked Icons for 6 DOS Boxes. On occasion I have used even more. 64 may be a bit much, but I already have a clue on how I might be able to raise that limit. The BSOD was very informative.

Sure  and I would call you a very advanced user, doing very advanced things on your 9x systems , so it still doesn't seem to me irrational to say that 10 or 16 are "good enough" for *everyone* and 64 is already overkill.

Just saying that there are maybe higher priority issues in maintaining/updating 9x/Me ....

jaclaz

[rloew]

Not disagreeing.

Of course breaking the limit is always fun.

[jaclaz]

4 hours ago, rloew said:

Not disagreeing.

Of course breaking the limit is always fun.

Sure, and that (attempting to break them limits)  is the right attitude! 

jaclaz

[ABCDEFG]

So where this free 32MB come from?

If System Arena is exact 1GB and Graphic card eat 256MB of it, and Cache eat 800MB what's left? -32MB?

And what about kernel stuff? It suppose to be there(in system arena) also.

So, how is it possible that this system works at all?

Edited August 30, 2017 by ABCDEFG

[dencorso]

The maximum value VCache may assume is 800 MiB. From the number of DOS Boxes all that we can infer is how much was free when you started allocating them. Hence it means that, on your actual system there was 1 GiB - 32 MiB of the System Arena already in use (or about 97%).

[rloew]

The Graphics Card does not necessarily tie up 256MiB of System Arena space. It depends upon how the Graphics Memory is managed.
The Graphics Memory is distinct Physical Memory. It only ties up System Arena space when it is mapped into Virtual Memory for manipulation by Windows.

When I first developed my RAM Limitation Patch, I noticed that my 128MiB ATI Card DID grab 128MiB of System Arena space. The Driver apparently mapped all of the Video Card Memory into Virtual Memory.
I designed the /A Option on my RAM Limitation Patch to force the allocation of the Video Virtual Memory to go to the Shared Arena rather than the System Arena. There is generally a lot more Shared Arena space than System Arena space.

I thought that the newer 256MiB and 512MiB Video Cards would cause serious problems, but when I tested them, I saw that the Drivers no longer allocated large blocks of System Arena space and my /A Option was not needed. Apparently they realized that mapping the entire Video Memory would cause serious problems and developed a different strategy to handle it.

Your System apparently allocated 800MiB to File Cache and around 189-192MiB to everything else.

[rloew]

I was able to open 87 DOS Boxes by Patching VCOND.VXD, but several System Programs and Functions only expect 64 DOS Boxes maximum so having more causes problems. It was fun while it lasted.

[dencorso]

Well, since you were studying VCOND.VXD, isn't there a way to patch it so that it reacts more gracefully than throwing a BSoD upon the attempted launch of the 65th DOS Box? After all, when there is not enough memory to reach the 64th it just gives that well-behaved "There is not enough memory..." info window, which can then be dismissed by just clicking on the "OK" button.

[rloew]

When I tested it, the BSOD seems to be dismissible without problems.

There doesn't seem to be a limit set. It just overruns a table. I would have to identify the code that creates the entry and determine how to make it fail gracefully.

[98SE]

On 8/27/2017 at 3:14 PM, ABCDEFG said:

Yes, i have that.

First Machine:

CPU: Intel Pentium III 450MHz

Mobo:Abit BH6 v1.1

RAM:768MB SDRAM

GPU: Hercules 3D Prophet 9700 PRO

Sound: SB AWE64 Gold

HDD: Samsung 20GB

 

Second Machine:

CPU: AMD Sempron 2400

Mobo: Matsonic MS8167C v7.0

RAM: 1GB DDR400 @333

GPU: GeForce 6800GT 256MB AGP

Sound: CMI8738SX 4-ch

HDD: Maxtor 120GB

 

Third Machine:

CPU: Intel Core2duo E6400

Mobo: ASRock 4CoreDual-VSTA

RAM: 1GB DDR400 (2x512 - Dual Channel)

GPU: GeForce 7800GT 256MB PCIE

Sound: Sound Blaster Live! SB 100

HDD: WD 640GB SATA

 

Did System 2 and 3 fresh install 98SE clean with the 1GB on board or did you have to reduce the memory capacity first and add it back later?

Some good hardware choices for the sound cards.  I got a few Hercules but they were more ancient pre CGA.

[ABCDEFG]

Yes, fresh install and no, I didn't have to reduce memory.

For System 3 if PCIE graphic card is used setup must be started with /p i  switch.

i did some modifications on NVAML.INF (nv82.16 driver) to add 7800GT and some wide screen resolutions.

[98SE]

2 hours ago, ABCDEFG said:

Yes, fresh install and no, I didn't have to reduce memory.

For System 3 if PCIE graphic card is used setup must be started with /p i  switch.

i did some modifications on NVAML.INF (nv82.16 driver) to add 7800GT and some wide screen resolutions.

/IP Bypasses detection of undocumented plug and play devices.

So far in my tests I only used /IS and it had nothing to do with the CPU or Chipset.

I just hated the ScanDisk running for no reason on a clean drive.

I've been hacking the video drivers (many hours) also to remove the extra bloat in the .INF file and resolve some compatibility issues.  I use a HDTV monitor so those high frequencies may end up causing a problem with what you are doing.  You're probably using a regular CRT.  Glad you got your older rig to work without modifications.  It's always nice when things work as they should as A to Z and straightforward.

I think Microsoft should have considered fixing the max memory issue in Windows ME.  It probably would have become more popular in the end had it worked properly with over 3.2GB and then someone would patch it to use all your memory like XP.  Alas.

I've updated the requirements looking for 8GB and higher installed memory systems running without commercial patching or modifying the Windows system files.  But definitely it's nice to hear some legacy systems still work without any modifications.

Can you push any of them to 1.25GB, 1.5GB, or 2GB total if they aren't already max memory capped?

Edited September 3, 2017 by 98SE

[Dibya]

12 hours ago, 98SE said:

/IP Bypasses detection of undocumented plug and play devices.

So far in my tests I only used /IS and it had nothing to do with the CPU or Chipset.

I just hated the ScanDisk running for no reason on a clean drive.

I've been hacking the video drivers (many hours) also to remove the extra bloat in the .INF file and resolve some compatibility issues.  I use a HDTV monitor so those high frequencies may end up causing a problem with what you are doing.  You're probably using a regular CRT.  Glad you got your older rig to work without modifications.  It's always nice when things work as they should as A to Z and straightforward.

I think Microsoft should have considered fixing the max memory issue in Windows ME.  It probably would have become more popular in the end had it worked properly with over 3.2GB and then someone would patch it to use all your memory like XP.  Alas.

I've updated the requirements looking for 8GB and higher installed memory systems running without commercial patching or modifying the Windows system files.  But definitely it's nice to hear some legacy systems still work without any modifications.

Can you push any of them to 1.25GB, 1.5GB, or 2GB total if they aren't already max memory capped?

Do you thing me can handle PAE? But I donot think unless you rewrite much of the kernel . Best of luck if you plan to do so.

[rloew]

Without Patching you cannot exceed approx 1152MiB of "available" RAM in Windows 98/98SE period. The limit for ME is around 1.9GB.

PAE requires restructuring the Page Tables. This would require a major rewrite of the Kernel memory Routines and all Drivers that need to see Physical Memory.

I use PSE in my MEMORY64 API which is more compatible with the existing Page Tables.