Jump to content

It has been 7 years since Win98 was released


un4given1

Recommended Posts


Windows 98 does not support more than 512MB of RAM. While you may have more than that installed, your system will not utilize it.

I'm not wrong.

Unbelievable. Refusing to admit a mistake no matter what.

Talk about immature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You Can Do Almost Everything on a 98 pc than on a xp pc

Connect to a domain? No

roflmaopoe

I love when people show their true ignorance :lol::lol::lol:

anyways, I run XP and lots of my customers run 98

both are succeptable to virii, adware and trojans

Yes, XP is more stable

For some things 98 is faster, but not enough to really measure, especially if you get rid of some of the bloat in XP such as that assinine restore feature, what a hog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 98 does not support more than 512MB of RAM. While you may have more than that installed, your system will not utilize it.

I'm not wrong.

Unbelievable. Refusing to admit a mistake no matter what.

Talk about immature.

What are you talking about? Can't you read? What part of my statement don't you understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 98 does not support more than 512MB of RAM. While you may have more than that installed, your system will not utilize it.

What are you talking about? Can't you read? What part of my statement don't you understand?

You claim my system can't utilize more than 512 MB.

As I posted earlier, I have 1 GB installed, and varying amounts from 0 MB to 1024 MB are in use, depending on what is loaded, while 0 MB of my swap file is in use. Therefore my system is regularly utilizes more than 512 MB. And it's Windows 98 SE.

How many times do you need this explained? I don't understand how someone in IT can struggle so hard to grasp something so simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant is surely you didn't read the article I posted. Take a minute and actually read it... That will explain why your system appears to be using your full RAM, when in fact it isn't.

Dude, did you even read your article?

It says the following:

Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the

maximum amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288

KB) or less.

So it suggests using 512 MB or less for your file cache. Note that this is an arbitrary number and is JUST a suggestion. Most likely 511 MB or 513 MB will not crash the system! Especially when I can install 98 SE on a fresh 1 GB PC without any file cache setting, and have no problem with the default max file cache of 800 MB!

And what is this about Windows 98 SE it not utilizing all my memory, un4given1?

If I have a 512 MB cache like the article says, and its full of cached data, are you saying my system can't run because there is not a single byte of physical RAM left to use? Of course not, I can have a full 512 MB cache plus 128 MB AGP aperture plus 200 MB of programs plus 100 MB of soundfonts plus etc.. all in physical RAM. All 1 GB being utilized by Win98 SE, with 0 MB swap used and no disk activity.

And I don't mind being limited to a 512 MB cache (if that's even a true limit), in fact I think that's an insane waste and I prefer to limit myself to 128 MB. This leaves nearly 900 MB of physical RAM to play with.

I suggest you do a bit more thinking before your next post. Like the ranting you posted about 98 SE being six years old and how I need to go back to school for math or something, a little more research on your part will make things clearer and help prevent further embarassment to yourself.

Also in your article - posted nearly a year ago before all of the wonderful SP's that we have now:

"Just to let everyone know I installed 1Gig of ram without a single

issue and performance is 1000% better"

Answer truthfully, did you even read your own article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so what it says is Windows 98 can support up to 2GB, but that there are problems that arise with more than 512MB... Just one more thing to crash Windows 98...

If you have 1GB of RAM I am going to assume that you have a system that will run Windows XP. With that much RAM (more than 98 would ever need) why would you waste it on Windows 98? Couldn't you assume that with 1GB Windows XP will run pretty fast? Did you look into the videos I posted? Or the page full of differences between 98 and XP? Now, lets see if we can put this conversation back on track discussing why people use Windows 98 instead of XP...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't you assume that with 1GB Windows XP will run pretty fast?

The Win XP PC I use has 1 GB and it is a bit sluggish :(

It is an Intel CPU though. BTW speed is not the main reason I dislike XP; activation is.

Did you look into the videos I posted?

Not yet.

Or the page full of differences between 98 and XP?

I glanced at it. Frankly, I don't know what most of it is, or it looks to be of little benefit (I'm not an IT admin or even in IT). I'll read it more thoroughly though.

I have no problem accepting that XP can do more, I just am not sure whether I need any of it.

Actually, DOS support is probably better on 98 SE and that's another reason for liking 98 SE. On 98 SE you still have the ability to boot into DOS (real) mode for a further speed boost, for playing old DOS games, or for easy troubleshooting. The partition imaging software I use runs in DOS mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem accepting that XP can do more, I just am not sure whether I need any of it.

I can live with that... But take a second and watch those videos. You may find XP has some features that may look good, or you just may not need them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of my thoughts about the 98 SE / XP differences list:

System Restore - Don't know what this is but I hear only bad things about it.

Windows Firewall - There are plenty of free firewall programs, why pay $350 to get the monopoly-designed one? Also I heard that this does not check outgoing packets which is a security risk in my view.

Integrated CD Burning - Also a case where there are tons of free alternatives.

Multilingual Support - I do not want strangers using my PC.

Resultant Set of Policy (RSoP) - No idea what this means, I will administer my own PC thanks.

Safe Mode Startup Options - Still not as good as booting to DOS in 98 SE.

Remote Desktop - The client CAN be installed on 98 SE, and I do not want the server component (another security risk)

Enhanced Online Conferencing - I'll never use this. Sounds like more bloat to clog my system with.

Unified Wireless LAN Client - No use for this; I'm not going to lug my desktop around. Also hotspots are another security risk.

Bluetooth 2.0 Update - Another security risk; also I don't want to have to charge batteries constantly just to operate my PC.

Unattended Installation - If I were installing multiple PC's all the time this would be great. I don't do that though.

Internet Explorer 6 Administration Kit - I prefer Firefox, not IE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Un4given,

Because you are top IT manager and works in a large corp environement, worked for compaq etc, that's why you are alergical to Unofficial Packs, unexpected geek tweaks, free hot fixes etc

Go polish your XP Rolls-Royce with you driver.

If you like Adobe products, now I understand why like XP. The problem, is that despite all the most recent hardware, your computer will always reacts like a P200.

XP is not better because it support 1Gb (you rarely need that much), it's bad because it needs 128Mb minimum.

Question of point of view.

I don't care if I'm limited to 512Kb, if my w98 runs faster than your XP with 1Gb.

Poeple don't buy XP because they have 1Gb ram that allow to have a better computer, they buy 1GB because they need it since XP is installed by the shop and Adobe Photoshop and Acrobat too almost by default.

With these softwares that you cherish so much poeple will always be in need for more performant hardware.

That's how the commerce works.

And this limitation is not true anymore with the SP. It was even not always true before.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=333688

Does Windows ’98 SE have a RAM limit?

"PROBLEM: I recently read that Windows 98 Second Edition can recognize

only 128MB of RAM, and that purchasing more memory is not productive.

Is this true?

SOLUTION: No. It’s an urban legend.

Fredledingue 
Sorry to interrupt your conversation, but does it mean that, after installing the SP 2.0 RCIb I can put 1Gb of ram in my computer and effectively use 1Gb (without modifying the ini file)? 

Gape Feb 11 2005, 01:26 AM Post #19

Yes. SP has carefully selected files and settings (.ini) for supporting 1 GB RAM on the Windows 98 SE.

erpdude8 Feb 11 2005, 09:33 AM Post #20

certainly, Fredledingue. just be sure you have installed the right RAM modules for your computer. I assume you are using a relatively new PC that can allow the use of 1 Gb of RAM. Then you can use the memory tweaks Gape mentioned earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...