If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Major new development in Windows 98 RAM memory capability patch has beendiscovered!
I'm re-posting the following to a few newsgroups where I know some
people still run win-98 as part of dual-boot setup, or have recently moved away from win-98, or for general knowledge. For at least the past 4 years, some windows-98 users have been able to use up to 4 gb of ram by using these patches. Memory constraints has long been seen as one of the major differences between win-9x/me and the NT line of OS's. But clearly, as this patch indicates, it has been an artificially-imposed constraint by Macro$haft. ---------------------------- It appears that some combination of a Windows-98 hot-fix and some hacking at least 4 years ago, possibly by some Germans, has resulted in a very simple set of 2 files that can allow Windows 98 to use up to 4 gb of ram. As time goes on we'll learn more about how this patch originated, but it seems to have been circulating in German-language windows forums up until now. Thanks to Dencorso and his obtuse and irrational censorship as he lords over the Windows-98 Forums at MSFN.org, he indicated that such a German patch existed, and he labeled it as "warez". I then began a discussion on "FoolsDesign.org" and the location of the patch files was posted thanks to a user there. That thread can be found he http://www.foolsdesign.org/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=607 Once Dencorso found out about that thread, he removed his own MSFN post where he described his censorship of the topic. He's so anal he even censored himself! Why on earth those moderators at MSFN think that Microsoft is in any way concerned about Windows 9x today defies explanation. They are their own worst enemies when it comes to helping advance and grow the Windows 9x/me enthusiast community. Their censorship efforts do nothing but instill a culture of fear and intimidation and diminish the community at MSFN. Hopefully more enthusiasts and win-98 users will discover the free and uncensored windows 98 usenet groups and also the software forum at foolsdesign.org. Are you reading this Dencorso? Will you and your other moderators change your ways and allow more free and open discussion about how to advance Windows 9x/me - Microsoft be damned? Here is a link to the new VMM32.vxd and VMM.vxd files that allow Windows 98 to use all available ram on any motherboard you have, up to 4 gb: http://www.freora.de/index.php?optio...id=3&Itemid=52 Scroll down to the last item, which is: 4 GB Hauptspeicher für WIN 98SE ( mit vmm98sed.zip )hot! But don't click on it. Instead, click on the small little "Download" button right beside the "Details" button. What you will download is Vmm98sed.zip (about 1mb in size). When you unpack it, you will find a reproduction of the Windows directory tree that helps tell you where to put these files. Inside WINDOWS\SYSTEM\ you will find VMM32.VXD and you will copy that file to your own WINDOWS\SYSTEM directory, over-writing the existing file which you should first rename to VMM32.vxd.old. You will also see a subdirectory called VMM32 which contains VMM.VXD (which you should copy to your WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32\ directory, and there will be no pre-existing file with that name. There is some indicatation that a file called ENABLE.VXD should also be placed in the WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32\ directory. That file is not normally found on win-9x systems, but it is on the win-98 CD. Here is a link to that file: http://filepost.com/files/98e56ddd/ENABLE.VXD/ The two files VMM32.VXD and VMM.VXD seem to have been in circulation since January 2010 because they were submitted to virustotal.com on that date for malware analysis. That was the first and only time they have been seen by Virustotal until I submitted them yesterday. The scan 4 years ago was negative, and so was my scan, so they are clean as far as 53 Anti-virus programs are concerned. I have varified that they work, as I have 2 gb ram on my system now and Windows System Properties shows 2046 mb available memory. Any questions? Comments? Post them! No censorship here! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Major new development in Windows 98 RAM memory capability patch has been discovered!
In ,
98 Guy typed: Any questions? Comments? Post them! No censorship here! Have you actually found Windows 98SE benefit from more than 64MB of RAM? I only have one Windows 98SE system still left and I rarely ever fire it up anymore. But I did about 12 years ago change it from 64MB to 192MB of RAM (supposedly the max for a Toshiba 2595XDVD). And I never saw any gain in performance at all. I also had other machines that I don't longer own that had experienced the same. While I like Windows 98SE and all (it can play DVD fine with a very slow system for example that 2000/XP can't on the same machines). But my biggest beef with 9x is with the resource limitations. As I could have like 3 to 6 applications opened and the system maxed out on System Resources. I seem to recall that 98SE only has a 64kb heap and that is all. Even having 4GB of RAM won't change that problem one bit. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Major new development in Windows 98 RAM memory capability patchhas been discovered!
98 Guy wrote:
snipped a bit For at least the past 4 years, some windows-98 users have been able to use up to 4 gb of ram by using these patches. Memory constraints has long been seen as one of the major differences between win-9x/me and the NT line of OS's. But clearly, as this patch indicates, it has been an artificially-imposed constraint by Macro$haft. I have varified that they work, as I have 2 gb ram on my system now and Windows System Properties shows 2046 mb available memory. Any questions? Comments? Post them! No censorship here! Have you verified the properties of the OS at all ? Is there a 2GB limit for userspace on a single program ? The mapping in 32 bit world, places a 4GB limit on the virtual addressing (consistent with doing 32 bit math to make addresses). And that is split between userspace and kernelspace. So when you say Win98 can use 4GB, it's with the caveat that there may be a single-program limit of 2GB (3GB with Large_Address_Aware). You can get some idea of these limits, from looking at the top section of the table here. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...78(VS.85).aspx Assuming a worst case for the new behavior of Win98, it might mean starting several programs, to use the majority of your memory. I have nothing here which is large address aware and thus can't even test it. None of my software has the large Address Aware bit set. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_address_space "On later 32-bit editions of Microsoft Windows it is possible to extend the user-mode virtual address space to 3 GiB while only 1 GiB is left for kernel-mode virtual address space by marking the programs as IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and enabling the /3GB switch in the boot.ini file." And WinXP X32 can address more than 4GB. Right now, I have 8GB of RAM installed, and the DataRAM RAMDisk is using the top 4GB of space, while the bottom 4GB (3.2GB) is used for programs. That's possible, because PAE is present in SP3. DataRAM runs in Ring0 as a driver, which is how it can get up there. The Microsoft memory license applies to Ring3 and running programs in userspace. With PAE, WinXP x32 could make some usage of RAM (for that RAMdisk), all the way up to 64GB. Obviously, with an old chipset, the physical memory slots can't handle that. My fastest Win98 setup, is limited to 2GB by the hardware memory controller. 4GB of DIMMs will actually register properly, but the BIOS doesn't know how to set the memory timing properly, and the memory throws errors. There are many more words that could be written about this discovery - a proper characterization of whether the change is really useful or not. For example, test a 3D game that uses a lot of memory. Is the AGP GART addressing issue solved by this patch ? Or is the memory available to a 3D game much less than 4GB/3GB/2GB ? Does a 3D game crash with the patch installed ? Lots of characterization work remains - by someone lucky enough to own a 4GB containing machine with Win98 on it. Everyone remembers how twitchy Win98 was, without that patch in place. And I refuse to believe every last twitch will be removed by it. It would require removing how the AGP GART mapping works, how some sort of system file cache works, and I can't believe those Germans would be able to re-engineer the entire OS. When guys fix stuff by patching out branches with NOPs, that doesn't achieve re-architecting. If the VMM32.VXD was an entirely different size, then I might believe it was written from scratch. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Major new development in Windows 98 RAM memory capability patch hasbeen discovered!
BillW50 wrote:
Have you actually found Windows 98SE benefit from more than 64MB of RAM? That is such a dumb question. I seem to recall that 98SE only has a 64kb heap and that is all. Even having 4GB of RAM won't change that problem one bit. See, this is where you continue to spread misinformation about win-98 system resources. There are several heaps, and a big difference between Win-95 and Win-98 is that all but one of the heaps was changed to 32-bits in Windows 98. Meaning they can address 2 gb worth of heap space. Windows 98 retains some or most of the original win-3.x / win-95 heaps for compatibility reasons. If you are still running 16-bit applications, they will use those heaps. READ THE FOLLOWING and, once and for all, understand how these resources work, and why Win-98 is more similar to NT in this regard: ================== One of the ironies of Windows memory mamagement is that, for many computers, certain small pieces of memory are more important than the entire memory system. These small pieces comprise the system resources. They're special memory areas called heaps that Windows 98 uses to store data structures for things like windows, menus, toolbars, fonts, ports and more. The irony lies in the frustrating fact that your computer can have megabytes of free memory, but if the system resource heaps reach their limits, your programs may crash and windows itself may refust to run. The good news is that Windows 98's system resource management has been much improved over that of Windows 3.x. The latter used four 16-bit heaps that could hold a mere 64 kb of data each. By contrast, Windows 98 mostle uses a single 32-bit heap, which is capable of addressing 2GB. For compatibility reasons, Win-98 retains one of the old 16-bit heaps. This enabled the win-98 designers to greatly increas the system resource limits. For example, in Win 3.x you could install no more than 250 or 300 fonts, but with win-98 that number is closer to 1000. Besides increasing the heap size, win-98 continued the system resource management improvements that were introduced in win-95: - Win-98 monitors and, if necessary, cleans up after 32-bit applications. Win-98 examines the heap after a 32-bit program shuts down and then removes any allocated resources that remains on the heap. - 16-bit applications often intentionally leave some resources allocated after shutdown so that other processes can use those resources. This is efficient, so Windows 98 waits until all 16-bit applicatiosn have been closed before it rmoved allocates resources from the heap. http://books.google.ca/books?id=7eoC...source=bl&ots= zyZp5cHaYq&sig=5pqlvDiIAVcmfmnDNbonWkYeSwY&hl=en&s a=X&ei=79J0U7CuBtKM7AbY9YGwCg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v= onepage&q=windows%2098%20heap%20size&f=false That's a single google link, in case you want to re-assemble it and look at it. The Unauthorized Guide to Windows 98 By Paul McFedries ====================== This is one of the reasons why Win-98 got a bad rap for stability during it's first few years of life. Many people were still running 16-bit software held over from the Win 3.x days, and they rarely had more than 64 mb of installed ram. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Major new development in Windows 98 RAM memory capability patch has been discovered!
On Thu, 15 May 2014 10:02:57 -0400, 98 Guy "98"@Guy. com wrote:
I'm re-posting the following to a few newsgroups where I know some people still run win-98 as part of dual-boot setup, or have recently moved away from win-98, or for general knowledge. For at least the past 4 years, some windows-98 users have been able to use up to 4 gb of ram by using these patches. Memory constraints has long been seen as one of the major differences between win-9x/me and the NT line of OS's. But clearly, as this patch indicates, it has been an artificially-imposed constraint by Macro$haft. I dont know about this patch, but may check into it. However, Win98 runs just fine for me, on a 1ghz Pentium 3 with 512megs ram. I'm putting together a 3ghz computer, Pentium 4, using one of the last of the IBM m-boards that support Win98, which is the 865 board. I currently dual boot to Win2000, but when this new machine is completed. I want to change my dual boot to XP. To run the XP boot, I'd like to install at least 2GB Ram. I know XP will benefit from this, but I question if Win98 will have problems with this extra Ram. If W98 just ignores the additional Ram, that is fine with me, because like I said, it runs fine on the 512M Ram. But I have been concerned that the extra Ram will cause problems with W98. Has anyone done this? I'd like to know what to expect. If there will be a problem, I'll probably just leave the Ram at 512M, since my main use will be for running Win98 on this machine. Thanks |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Major new development in Windows 98 RAM memory capability patch hasbeen discovered!
wrote:
I dont know about this patch, but may check into it. However, Win98 runs just fine for me, on a 1ghz Pentium 3 with 512megs ram. It won't hurt - especially if your new machine has more than 1 gb of ram. If you don't want to use this patch, but still want to run win-98 on a machine with more than 1 gb of ram, then look at this: http://www.japheth.de/Jemm.html Download HimemX from http://japheth.de/Jemm.html (or he http://rayer.g6.cz/os/himemx33.zip) Copy himemx.exe to win98 directory Add this line in your config.sys: DEVICE=C:\WIN98\HIMEMX.EXE There are a few other details about how exactly to use it, but the bottom line is that himemx can limit the amount of RAM that win-98 can "see" if you have more than 1 or 1.5 gb of real physical ram in the system. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Major new development in Windows 98 RAM memory capability patch has been discovered!
In ,
98 Guy" "98 typed: BillW50 wrote: Have you actually found Windows 98SE benefit from more than 64MB of RAM? That is such a dumb question. I seem to recall that 98SE only has a 64kb heap and that is all. Even having 4GB of RAM won't change that problem one bit. See, this is where you continue to spread misinformation about win-98 system resources. There are several heaps, and a big difference between Win-95 and Win-98 is that all but one of the heaps was changed to 32-bits in Windows 98. Meaning they can address 2 gb worth of heap space. Windows 98 retains some or most of the original win-3.x / win-95 heaps for compatibility reasons. If you are still running 16-bit applications, they will use those heaps. READ THE FOLLOWING and, once and for all, understand how these resources work, and why Win-98 is more similar to NT in this regard: ================== One of the ironies of Windows memory mamagement is that, for many computers, certain small pieces of memory are more important than the entire memory system. These small pieces comprise the system resources. They're special memory areas called heaps that Windows 98 uses to store data structures for things like windows, menus, toolbars, fonts, ports and more. The irony lies in the frustrating fact that your computer can have megabytes of free memory, but if the system resource heaps reach their limits, your programs may crash and windows itself may refust to run. The good news is that Windows 98's system resource management has been much improved over that of Windows 3.x. The latter used four 16-bit heaps that could hold a mere 64 kb of data each. By contrast, Windows 98 mostle uses a single 32-bit heap, which is capable of addressing 2GB. For compatibility reasons, Win-98 retains one of the old 16-bit heaps. This enabled the win-98 designers to greatly increas the system resource limits. For example, in Win 3.x you could install no more than 250 or 300 fonts, but with win-98 that number is closer to 1000. Besides increasing the heap size, win-98 continued the system resource management improvements that were introduced in win-95: - Win-98 monitors and, if necessary, cleans up after 32-bit applications. Win-98 examines the heap after a 32-bit program shuts down and then removes any allocated resources that remains on the heap. - 16-bit applications often intentionally leave some resources allocated after shutdown so that other processes can use those resources. This is efficient, so Windows 98 waits until all 16-bit applicatiosn have been closed before it rmoved allocates resources from the heap. http://books.google.ca/books?id=7eoC...source=bl&ots= zyZp5cHaYq&sig=5pqlvDiIAVcmfmnDNbonWkYeSwY&hl=en&s a=X&ei=79J0U7CuBtKM7AbY9YGwCg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v= onepage&q=windows%2098%20heap%20size&f=false That's a single google link, in case you want to re-assemble it and look at it. The Unauthorized Guide to Windows 98 By Paul McFedries ====================== This is one of the reasons why Win-98 got a bad rap for stability during it's first few years of life. Many people were still running 16-bit software held over from the Win 3.x days, and they rarely had more than 64 mb of installed ram. Whether IE6, Outlook Express 6, MS Office 2000, and Media Player 9 contains 16 bit code or not, I don't know. All I can tell you is I run out of System Resources just by running the above applications. And that link above, Google won't let me see it. This link below will explain to you why I run out of System Resources all of the time. And what applications do you run under Windows 98 that benefit from more than 64MB of RAM? http://www.apptools.com/rants/resources.php -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Major new development in Windows 98 RAM memory capability patch hasbeen discovered!
BillW50 wrote:
Whether IE6, Outlook Express 6, MS Office 2000, and Media Player 9 contains 16 bit code or not, I don't know. All I can tell you is I run out of System Resources just by running the above applications. And that link above, Google won't let me see it. This link below will explain to you why I run out of System Resources all of the time. http://www.apptools.com/rants/resources.php I'll have more of a look at that and respond later. And what applications do you run under Windows 98 that benefit from more than 64MB of RAM? I have the following programs running: Outlook 2000 Netscape Communicator 4.79 Firefox 2.0.0.20 VLC media player 2.0.8 Abyss Web Server (for all the 127.0.0.1 entries in my HOSTS file) Norton 2002 System Information (so I can give you a ram-usage report) When you add stuff like shicome.exe, driveicon.exe, ddhelp.exe, wmiexe.exe, pstores.exe, tapisrv.exe, and a few other things, Norton System Information says: Total Physical Memory: 2046 mb Total Windows Memory: 2161 mb (must be including some swap file) Free: 2005 mb Used: 157 mb So would I want to only have 64 mb of physical ram at this point? I'd say no. You might be fooled into thinking you only need 64 mb because your hard-drive swap file is being used heavily by Windows to make up for the ram your system is lacking. This is a relatively light program load. As the night goes on, I'll be opening more apps, and using more ram. Win-98 resource meter says: System Resources: 59% free User Resources: 59% free GDI Resources: 74% free |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Compatibility issues with using this Mac for pure Windows XP development??? | Peter Olcott | General | 4 | May 24th 08 02:18 AM |
GA-8S648FX-775 (Memory Capability) | Santa-D | Gigabyte Motherboards | 2 | July 12th 07 01:14 AM |
Can't burn from the built in Windows XP burning capability | [email protected] | General | 0 | October 6th 06 01:07 AM |
939 pin boards with ECC memory capability? | Intel Inside | Gigabyte Motherboards | 2 | March 31st 06 06:56 AM |
>> Soundblaster Live! + Windows XP [home] = No Audio HQ & No soundfont capability << | disco biscuit | Creative Sound Blaster Cards | 1 | November 27th 04 05:22 AM |