Clean install of 98SE after XP Pro. installed

[Buffalo]

Re: Clean install of 98SE after XP Pro. installed

PCR wrote:
> "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:W4qdnU6bw9mm-1HbnZ2dnUVZ_uygnZ2d@comcast.com
>> PCR wrote:
>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:18B8A4C8-4235-402F-8365-E86B0B9F6CB8@microsoft.com
>>>> <snipped for length concerns>
>>>>
>>>> However, PCR I have yet to go back to the 2 gigabytes and am still
>>>> using 512 mb's of ram so when I have a few hours --- I will install
>>>> the 2 gigs of ram and take the adventure that follows. <grin>
>>>
>>> I see. Well, that's a little tricky (going by what I've read). Never
>>> let the W98 side use more than 512 KB.
>>
>> Actually, Win98SE uses 1GB very well. MaxFileCache just limits the
>> maximum amount of system memory allocated for caching files but lets
>> it use all the ram for its own use. (Win98SE seems to have problems
>> when over 1GB of ram is allowed to be recognized).
>>
>> I believe you already know this, but I was just trying to clarify
>> this for others that may have read your post.
>
> OK. That's right, yea-- 1 MB, & I already knew, uhuh. The MAIN point I
> was trying to make is... do not let the MaxFileCache control more RAM
> than actually is installed & usable to Win98. Someone at this NG once
> made that discovery the hard way!

I think you made a very important point.

>>
>>> ALSO, I believe, you should
>>> NOT boot to Win98 with more RAM allowed to the MaxFileCache than
>>> actually is installed in the computer. THEREFORE, make the following
>>> change-- but do not reboot until at least 512 KB is available...!...
>>
>> I believe that the accepted value for the MaxFileCache line is 70% of
>> your physical ram up to a max value of 524288.
>> At least that's what I remembered from my earlier game playing days.
>
> 70% of usable RAM, keeping in mind 524288 must not be exceeded? I
> can't quite recall everything I knew about that-- & I may even have
> done limited experiments! OK, Buffalo-- fine! 70%, then! OK, thanks.

That was a suggestion made about 10yrs ago if you had => 256mb of ram, I
think.

 

[PCR]

Re: Clean install of 98SE after XP Pro. installed

"Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:A9GdnWW-fNjoLlHbnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@comcast.com
| PCR wrote:
|> "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
|> news:W4qdnU6bw9mm-1HbnZ2dnUVZ_uygnZ2d@comcast.com
|>> PCR wrote:
|>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
|>>> news:18B8A4C8-4235-402F-8365-E86B0B9F6CB8@microsoft.com
|>>>> <snipped for length concerns>
|>>>>
|>>>> However, PCR I have yet to go back to the 2 gigabytes and am still
|>>>> using 512 mb's of ram so when I have a few hours --- I will
|>>>> install the 2 gigs of ram and take the adventure that follows.
|>>>> <grin>
|>>>
|>>> I see. Well, that's a little tricky (going by what I've read).
|>>> Never let the W98 side use more than 512 KB.
|>>
|>> Actually, Win98SE uses 1GB very well. MaxFileCache just limits the
|>> maximum amount of system memory allocated for caching files but lets
|>> it use all the ram for its own use. (Win98SE seems to have problems
|>> when over 1GB of ram is allowed to be recognized).
|>>
|>> I believe you already know this, but I was just trying to clarify
|>> this for others that may have read your post.
|>
|> OK. That's right, yea-- 1 MB, & I already knew, uhuh. The MAIN point
|> I was trying to make is... do not let the MaxFileCache control more
|> RAM than actually is installed & usable to Win98. Someone at this NG
|> once made that discovery the hard way!
|
| I think you made a very important point.

It sounds reasonable enough. In truth, I've just passed it along from
the individual who did experience it years ago (but not 10 years). It's
not something I actually would want to test or experience for myself!
Also, I believe there is one MVP who I did see once/twice make a similar
suggestion-- to prepare that (or a similar)setting but refrain from an
immediate reboot. That might have been Harper or Martell or Starbuck!

|>>
|>>> ALSO, I believe, you should
|>>> NOT boot to Win98 with more RAM allowed to the MaxFileCache than
|>>> actually is installed in the computer. THEREFORE, make the
|>>> following change-- but do not reboot until at least 512 KB is
|>>> available...!...
|>>
|>> I believe that the accepted value for the MaxFileCache line is 70%
|>> of your physical ram up to a max value of 524288.
|>> At least that's what I remembered from my earlier game playing days.
|>
|> 70% of usable RAM, keeping in mind 524288 must not be exceeded? I
|> can't quite recall everything I knew about that-- & I may even have
|> done limited experiments! OK, Buffalo-- fine! 70%, then! OK, thanks.
|
| That was a suggestion made about 10yrs ago if you had => 256mb of
| ram, I think.

. Alright. I won't argue against it. For a while I was saying it,
myself. Then, one day, I think I found that a MaxFileCache of 70% might
have caused this machine to use a swap file sooner than otherwise.
(IIRC, adjusting it a tad smaller seemed to correct that.) Also, it was
no cure to the sluggishness Explorer can experience after a
copy/move/delete of a massive number of files & folders.

Currently, I see I do have a "MaxFileCache=263200"-- but it is unchecked
in MSConfig. 263200 KB is... hmm, precisely 70% of 376 MB. But it's
unchecked! I suppose I will check it again, if a slew of MVP's clamor
for it, though. But don't go telling on me!

 

[Buffalo]

Re: Clean install of 98SE after XP Pro. installed


"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:uF9R3Cc5HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:A9GdnWW-fNjoLlHbnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@comcast.com
> | PCR wrote:
> |> "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
> |> news:W4qdnU6bw9mm-1HbnZ2dnUVZ_uygnZ2d@comcast.com
> |>> PCR wrote:
> |>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> |>>> news:18B8A4C8-4235-402F-8365-E86B0B9F6CB8@microsoft.com
> |>>>> <snipped for length concerns>
> |>>>>
> |>>>> However, PCR I have yet to go back to the 2 gigabytes and am still
> |>>>> using 512 mb's of ram so when I have a few hours --- I will
> |>>>> install the 2 gigs of ram and take the adventure that follows.
> |>>>> <grin>
> |>>>
> |>>> I see. Well, that's a little tricky (going by what I've read).
> |>>> Never let the W98 side use more than 512 KB.
> |>>
> |>> Actually, Win98SE uses 1GB very well. MaxFileCache just limits the
> |>> maximum amount of system memory allocated for caching files but lets
> |>> it use all the ram for its own use. (Win98SE seems to have problems
> |>> when over 1GB of ram is allowed to be recognized).
> |>>
> |>> I believe you already know this, but I was just trying to clarify
> |>> this for others that may have read your post.
> |>
> |> OK. That's right, yea-- 1 MB, & I already knew, uhuh. The MAIN point
> |> I was trying to make is... do not let the MaxFileCache control more
> |> RAM than actually is installed & usable to Win98. Someone at this NG
> |> once made that discovery the hard way!
> |
> | I think you made a very important point.
>
> It sounds reasonable enough. In truth, I've just passed it along from
> the individual who did experience it years ago (but not 10 years). It's
> not something I actually would want to test or experience for myself!
> Also, I believe there is one MVP who I did see once/twice make a similar
> suggestion-- to prepare that (or a similar)setting but refrain from an
> immediate reboot. That might have been Harper or Martell or Starbuck!
>
> |>>
> |>>> ALSO, I believe, you should
> |>>> NOT boot to Win98 with more RAM allowed to the MaxFileCache than
> |>>> actually is installed in the computer. THEREFORE, make the
> |>>> following change-- but do not reboot until at least 512 KB is
> |>>> available...!...
> |>>
> |>> I believe that the accepted value for the MaxFileCache line is 70%
> |>> of your physical ram up to a max value of 524288.
> |>> At least that's what I remembered from my earlier game playing days.
> |>
> |> 70% of usable RAM, keeping in mind 524288 must not be exceeded? I
> |> can't quite recall everything I knew about that-- & I may even have
> |> done limited experiments! OK, Buffalo-- fine! 70%, then! OK, thanks.
> |
> | That was a suggestion made about 10yrs ago if you had => 256mb of
> | ram, I think.
>
> . Alright. I won't argue against it. For a while I was saying it,
> myself. Then, one day, I think I found that a MaxFileCache of 70% might
> have caused this machine to use a swap file sooner than otherwise.
> (IIRC, adjusting it a tad smaller seemed to correct that.) Also, it was
> no cure to the sluggishness Explorer can experience after a
> copy/move/delete of a massive number of files & folders.
>
> Currently, I see I do have a "MaxFileCache=263200"-- but it is unchecked
> in MSConfig. 263200 KB is... hmm, precisely 70% of 376 MB. But it's
> unchecked! I suppose I will check it again, if a slew of MVP's clamor
> for it, though. But don't go telling on me!

Sounds like fun.

 

[PCR]

Re: Clean install of 98SE after XP Pro. installed

"Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:xsudnf-Cfd3UYFDbnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@comcast.com
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:uF9R3Cc5HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
|> "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
|> news:A9GdnWW-fNjoLlHbnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@comcast.com
|> | PCR wrote:
|> |> "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
|> |> news:W4qdnU6bw9mm-1HbnZ2dnUVZ_uygnZ2d@comcast.com
|> |>> PCR wrote:
|> |>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
|> |>>> news:18B8A4C8-4235-402F-8365-E86B0B9F6CB8@microsoft.com
|> |>>>> <snipped for length concerns>
|> |>>>>
|> |>>>> However, PCR I have yet to go back to the 2 gigabytes and am
|> |>>>> still using 512 mb's of ram so when I have a few hours --- I
|> |>>>> will install the 2 gigs of ram and take the adventure that
|> |>>>> follows. <grin>
|> |>>>
|> |>>> I see. Well, that's a little tricky (going by what I've read).
|> |>>> Never let the W98 side use more than 512 KB.
|> |>>
|> |>> Actually, Win98SE uses 1GB very well. MaxFileCache just limits
|> |>> the maximum amount of system memory allocated for caching files
|> |>> but lets it use all the ram for its own use. (Win98SE seems to
|> |>> have problems when over 1GB of ram is allowed to be recognized).
|> |>>
|> |>> I believe you already know this, but I was just trying to clarify
|> |>> this for others that may have read your post.
|> |>
|> |> OK. That's right, yea-- 1 MB, & I already knew, uhuh. The MAIN
|> |> point I was trying to make is... do not let the MaxFileCache
|> |> control more RAM than actually is installed & usable to Win98.
|> |> Someone at this NG once made that discovery the hard way!
|> |
|> | I think you made a very important point.
|>
|> It sounds reasonable enough. In truth, I've just passed it along from
|> the individual who did experience it years ago (but not 10 years).
|> It's not something I actually would want to test or experience for
|> myself! Also, I believe there is one MVP who I did see once/twice
|> make a similar suggestion-- to prepare that (or a similar)setting
|> but refrain from an immediate reboot. That might have been Harper or
|> Martell or Starbuck!
|>
|> |>>
|> |>>> ALSO, I believe, you should
|> |>>> NOT boot to Win98 with more RAM allowed to the MaxFileCache than
|> |>>> actually is installed in the computer. THEREFORE, make the
|> |>>> following change-- but do not reboot until at least 512 KB is
|> |>>> available...!...
|> |>>
|> |>> I believe that the accepted value for the MaxFileCache line is
|> |>> 70% of your physical ram up to a max value of 524288.
|> |>> At least that's what I remembered from my earlier game playing
|> |>> days.
|> |>
|> |> 70% of usable RAM, keeping in mind 524288 must not be exceeded? I
|> |> can't quite recall everything I knew about that-- & I may even
|> |> have done limited experiments! OK, Buffalo-- fine! 70%, then! OK,
|> |> thanks.
|> |
|> | That was a suggestion made about 10yrs ago if you had => 256mb of
|> | ram, I think.
|>
|> . Alright. I won't argue against it. For a while I was saying it,
|> myself. Then, one day, I think I found that a MaxFileCache of 70%
|> might have caused this machine to use a swap file sooner than
|> otherwise. (IIRC, adjusting it a tad smaller seemed to correct
|> that.) Also, it was no cure to the sluggishness Explorer can
|> experience after a copy/move/delete of a massive number of files &
|> folders.
|>
|> Currently, I see I do have a "MaxFileCache=263200"-- but it is
|> unchecked in MSConfig. 263200 KB is... hmm, precisely 70% of 376 MB.
|> But it's unchecked! I suppose I will check it again, if a slew of
|> MVP's clamor for it, though. But don't go telling on me!
|
| Sounds like fun.

Huh? No, no! It's checked, it's checked! And I'm living in Saskatchewan
now!

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[Dan]

Re: Clean install of 98SE after XP Pro. installed

I still have the 512 mb's installed. I will install the rest when I am ready
for adventure again. <grin>

"Buffalo" wrote:

> Dan wrote:
> > I just wrote it in the other thread but I will mention it here also.
> > I wanted to give everyone my thanks for helping me with Windows 98
> > Second Edition.
>
> So, did you ever install the other 1.5GB of ram?
> Hopefully you did and it's working well.
> I run a dual boot 98-2000 with 1 GB of ram and I only had to add the line to
> the [vcache] section of System.ini.
> One GB of ram runs just great on both systems.
>
>
>