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. 


cov3rt

Patchmem or related patches for windows 95 and 98SE

Recommended Posts

i was wondering if anyone has experience with using / working with rloew's ram or related patches for windows 95 and 98SE specifically. i was able to test his patchmem.exe patch, and i was able to boot windows 95 with 2 GB of ram, with usb tested working and a sample mp4 file with tcpmp mod. however, i noticed that there are other variables that could affect the operation of the system in relation to ram installed. 

but before going to that, for patchmem, i copied patchmem.exe and also split8mb.exe to the c:\windows folder, ran patchmem.exe. i also set minfilecache=86000, as well as maxfilecache=86000 before shutting off, installing more ram and rebooting. i use 86000 because it is at least 1/24 of 2048 MB of ram. the patch manual notes, doesn't say you have to remove the maxphyspage entry for windows 95, it only mentions for 98SE to remove it and only after installing unofficial service pack. i didn't have a maxphyspage setting from before the testing, so things worked out anyways. though for the 98SE section, it also mentions to remove maxfilecache, i'll have to see how i configure 98SE as i'll be testing in that OS in a bit. 

now the problem is, for the split8mb thing, i wanted to test this, but i wasn't sure if i configured it properly. it says add SPLIT8MB in your autoexec.bat, so that's exactly what i did, i added only the name of the file ( using sysedit ), saved settings, but then when trying to reboot, it caused the insufficient memory problem and would not boot into windows. after going into safe mode and removing the SPLIT8MB entry, it was able to reboot again with 2048 MB of ram installed. 

so my question is, did i configure the split8mb thing properly or did i do it wrong? and / or what could be the issue? it seems to me in one sense, that maybe this is only needed if the system doesn't boot initially with the increased ram, so it's only meant for very specific cases? also, i remember reading another patch being similar to patchmem, i think it was the nvidia 512 MB video card patch, which also corrected the large registry size issue, but it's unclear whether if this is a seperate update that ALSO needs to be installed along with the split8mb thing and / or if one or the other should be installed? 

i'm just trying to make this as straightforward as possible, so i can write in my docs on what to do, what to install, when to install it / how to install. i understand there are lots of other untested patches, but i'm just trying to focus on just the ram and nvidia related stuff, as those imo, are more important. i'm happy though that i was able to get at least PATCHMEM.exe to work by allowing up to 2 GB of ram on windows 95, even though rigorous testing or other systems were not tested with it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cov3rt said:

i was wondering if anyone has experience with using / working with rloew's ram or related patches for windows 95 and 98SE

Lots of people do... however, most, like myself, lost interest in or otherwise gave up on 9x/ME forever, way back when. Still, most of the info you'll ever need is collected in the thread I've just pointed you to, which I no longer update, but which preserves most info you may require.

==== Additional info added later ====

MinFileCache is *never* needed. MaxFileCache and MaxPhysPage should be removed for using the RAM Limitation Patch. The most usual setting for the patch is to run it with the /M command-line parameter. SPLIT8MB shouldn't usually be needed. For more about that:

On 2/27/2009 at 6:48 AM, rloew said:

SPLIT8MB fragments available Low RAM so that Windows will not put large blocks of data in Low RAM during Real Mode Boot. The /M option on the Windows 98/SE/ME RAM Limitation Patch was intended to replace SPLIT8MB but it appears that some people need SPLIT8MB [nonetheless].

Version 6.0 of my RAM Limitation Patch makes the same Patches as Version 5.1 for Windows 98SE when not using the /M option.

My other machines have not been updated except for my older GigaByte K8NNXP (RLoew #2) which needed the /M option when I reenabled the RTL8110 Ethernet.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As dencorso said, right after installing 95/98SE, just run PATCHMEM.EXE /M and forget about anything else. Don't bother with SPLIT8MB, Min/Max FileCache, or MaxPhysPage.

For many years been running 98SE without ever tweaking FileCache settings, even before the RAM patch became available to public.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, MrMateczko said:

As dencorso said, right after installing 95/98SE, just run PATCHMEM.EXE /M and forget about anything else. Don't bother with SPLIT8MB, Min/Max FileCache, or MaxPhysPage.

For many years been running 98SE without ever tweaking FileCache settings, even before the RAM patch became available to public.

"oddly" for me, i still need to use 1/24 of system ram for minfilecache and maxfilecache. at least from my testing, i noticed that when i removed the entries, even with rloew's patch, it functioned oddly such as iexplorer.exe causing a illegal operation / page fault, and it usually was related to ole32.dll. another weird issue ( not because of not having the filecache settings ) was with using a older version of vlc player that was able to launch successfully, i don't remember the version as i deleted them shortly after, i think it might have been 0.5.3, if not that, then .4 version that launched, and played a mpeg video shortly before making some weird slight high pitched noise and then exited and complained about a invalid page fault in directx.S0. i don't think the vlc player .8.6d in specific is related at all to system settings or hardware, as i noticed when it tries to install, it mentions not being able to load a certain file ( this happened on other computers ), but oddly, older versions don't seem to have this specific issue, yet still don't run properly. the TCPMP mod player worked fine of brief testing, and i also tested winamp 2.95 without issue for a sample mp3 file. 

another strange but new issue i encountered was wmi9x failing to load certain files, cimwin32.mof, msi.mof, etc. perhaps these issues might be related to ACPI in some way? also, the reason why i mentioned the 1/24 ram and filecache settings is because without minfilecache and maxfilecache settings of 1/24 of ram, wmi9x wouldn''t even install, with GLB6362 causing a invalid page fault in ole32.dll. i then added minfilecache=86000, and maxfilecache=86000 ( having 2048 MB of ram installed ), rebooted, and was able to install wmi9x, but with the errors related to not loading cimwin32.mof, etc. there was also a invalid page fault with a certain version of vlc i tested, possibly 0.6.2, but instead of it being for ole32, it was mentioned in module <unknown>. so other than wmi9x and those vlc players, i don't think i had any other large issues, at least presumably, i believe the explorer errors were cured from using the appropriate minfilecache and maxfilecache settings, but how other people can run their systems fine without it, i don't know. 

ironically, for maxphyspage, i did not add the entry in this build, but what are the chances that this would have any effect on the related problems i have? i may need to test this out, despite rloew's patch notes mentioning ( at least for 98SE ), for it be removed from system.ini settings, though not specifically mentioned for windows 95. as for patchmem itself, i'll pass on that information to the next configuration to run patchmem.exe /m. however, i was wondering, for the part he mentioned to copy patchmem to the windows folder, is it ok if it's copied to the c:\windows folder? also what's the difference between using that switch command vs just double clicking the executable? reason why i ask is because i didn't use the switch method, i simply double clicked patchmem.exe to install from c:\windows where i copied to. 

Edited by cov3rt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is recommended to remove the MaxPhysPage, MinFileCache, and MaxFileCache when using PATCHMEM /M, what is the recommendation with this setup as far as using smartdrv.exe, xhdd.sys, and/or BUFFERS= setting in config.sys?  There is a great deal of different ideas about using these scattered about in different threads here but I'm having trouble figuring out if there is any consensus on what the latest/greatest configuration would be when using PATCHMEM /M.

What is the latest thought about using himem vs. himemx with this kind of set up?

Thanks,

DJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Feamane said:

what is the recommendation with this setup as far as using smartdrv.exe, xhdd.sys, and/or BUFFERS= setting in config.sys? 

RLoew's products are compatible with smartdrive.exe and never were tested with xhdd.sys, but the recommendation is to use neither, because they're bypassed, anyway, by the protected mode 32-disk access. You can use...

Quote

BUFFERS=64,8
FILES=50
FCBS=40,8
STACKS=18,256

... and forget about them.

46 minutes ago, Feamane said:

What is the latest thought about using himem vs. himemx with this kind of set up?

Himemx is a time-bomb when used with 9x/ME, because it prevents Windows from taking control of the XMS administration. There's more info by RLoew himself about that in one of the posts linked from the 1st post of my thread on > 2 GiB RAM. tl;dr: use himem.sys and forget about it.

:yes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome!  I was spinning my wheels reading all the different posts, it gets a little confusing going back into all the old threads--I now realize that while it was good I was taking notes as reading all the old threads, my mistake was not including dates in my notes.  :crazy:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dencorso said:

Himemx is a time-bomb when used with 9x/ME, because it prevents Windows from taking control of the XMS administration. There's more info by RLoew himself about that in one of the posts linked from the 1st post of my thread on > 2 GiB RAM. tl;dr: use himem.sys and forget about it.

:yes:

But xRayeR's patch for IO.SYS with a renamed Himemx is still needed for Safe Mode?  This still leaves the Himem.sys to be used by Normal Mode, correct?  In my current testing Safe Mode would hang until I did xRayeR's patch.  But now when I try to do a Scandskw.exe on a 80GB HDD in Normal Mode it never is able to finish, it keeps hanging.  Usually no message, but once it said that Windows was out of memory.  This is a new install with 1GB RAM with Patchmem /M and the config.sys and system.ini changes mentioned in this thread.  Ideas?

Thanks,

DJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scandskw.exe is an NE exe (16-bit) and, therefore, it's limited in memory access, no matter whether you use RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch or not; the problem lies with scandskw.exe itself. But, I'm sure, if you instead use scandisk.exe in plain DOS, it'll work all right abd be able to finish. Howeber, you shouldn't need xRayeR's patch at all for safe mode. RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch should be enough, if correctly applied. If not, Usher's method (edited SYSTEM.CB) makes unnecessary to ever use Himemx and xRayeR's patch. All that info is collected here in the 9x/ME forum, and much more, but since nobody ever seems to be able to search and use it in any meaningful way, it's already more lost in fact than the proverbial tears in rain! There's a section on the 1st post of my  > 2 GiB thread entitled: "Noteworthy specific posts inside MSFN threads"... read all those posts, and all your questions shall be answered better than I can. If you've already read 'em all, do it again because with what you know now, many formerly obscure comments will become understandable. Those are complex subjects, so undestanding them can only happen in steps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, OK.  I tried the scandskw.exe from BHDD31.ZIP that I saw mentioned in some posts here, but same result.  Now I know.  I will look into Usher's method.  I also have discovered that DiskSpeed32 3.0.0.5 is crashing on this new build which it doesn't on any of my other 1GB Win98 machines, which is why I was running the scandisk thinking it was maybe a disk problem.  I'll have to run the scandisk from DOS and then try the DiskSpeed32 again.  I need some way to measure my throughput so I can try some different settings and see if I can maximize what I have.

I've been reading many posts, and have been using search as well.  Of course sometimes the problem with search is you don't know the exact correct term to search for until you find the information you are looking for!  But you are right, sometimes it is an iterative process since the first time through it can be like trying to take a sip from a fire hose.

Thanks!

DJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dencorso said:

Himemx is a time-bomb when used with 9x/ME, because it prevents Windows from taking control of the XMS administration. There's more info by RLoew himself about that in one of the posts linked from the 1st post of my thread on > 2 GiB RAM. tl;dr: use himem.sys and forget about it.

:yes:

Time-bomb? What? How can I experience something like this? I've read the rloew's post about it but it only deals with ramdisks and EMM386, I don't use both on 98SE.

I've been using HIMEMX.EXE without any problems for many years, it is necessary in my case, as normal himem.sys makes 98SE not bootable on my ASRock H110M-DVS R3.0 motherboard. Without HIMEMX, it just hangs on the startup screen, regardless if I use the RAM patch with the /M option or not. I haven't tested XMGR.SYS yet, would it be better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your experience is a small subset of all possible experiences, and actually applies just to your own use of an OS, whereas the knowledge acquired by code analysis (if correctly done) covers all possible experiences. Moreover what can happen may never happen at all. The only true way of avoiding a delayed crash, in case one wants to hide memory from Win 9x/ME, is if it never finds it out. That's what RLoew's HimemEX.sys (a non-XMS large memory manager) does. HIMEMX.EXE is good just until it's actually used to provide XMS, when Win tries to take control and comes down crashing. A XMS ramdisk is one of the ways one may use to cause it to happen, but any XMS client which actually uses a big enough chunk of it will do, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HIMEMEX sounds interesting, will have to try it out (as well as XMGR.SYS) if it can fix the startup hang problem on my motherboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll find the latest HIMEMEX inside the non-XMS ramdisk package. It must be loaded before HIMEM.SYS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, since Rloew is gone (sadly) and I read somewhere his son gave his work to the forum for free (if I understood right), no one will be offended by this:

There is an alternative permanent solution, so there's no more need for the rampatch on every install:

You can patch the vmm32 (in cab50, but with name vmm if I remember correctly) with a hex-editor, and place it outside of the cab on the install media/folder, since the install give preference for those:

Change they bytes like this (hopefully no typing errors):

A8E: 08 -> 88
A93: 0B C0 0F 84 B3 00 66 0F B7 C8 8B D0 -> 66 09 C0 74 13 66 89 C1 66 89 C2 90
AA2: 09 -> 89
10524: 1C 58 -> 00 EA
4180C: 34 08 -> 90 0E
41813: 34 08 -> 90 0E
41939: 52 -> 91
41941: 52 -> 91
41968: 68 -> B8
4196D: E8 BE 0E -> E9 AA 1C
41970: 00 -> 01
41C0C: 06 -> 0A
41C4B: 60 -> A0
42084: 81 -> 01
4209E: 84 -> 04
5361C: 00 00 00 -> 05 80 59
53621: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 -> 50 E8 09 F2 FE FF E9 46 E3 FE FF

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...