VOGONS

Common searches


The 65MB Win98 ram limit

Topic actions

Reply 20 of 33, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Indeed. Just move your existing Config/Autoexec somewhere out of C:\ and things should work fine. I don't know how you ended up with at Config.sys, but there is nothing useful in it.

Windows 98 needs nothing in Config.sys to see all the RAM, because it loads its own HIMEM.SYS automatically and that HIMEM.SYS supports >64MB.

Reply 21 of 33, by GigAHerZ

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
MXDash wrote on 2020-03-06, 23:07:
GigAHerZ wrote on 2020-03-06, 11:26:

i load XMS memory manager and then create a ramdisk on the top 192MB so that windows after that only sees first 64MB of ram.

Well, thanks but that's really not gonna help. I just want to see what these files look like when windows is using more than 64MB.

That ramdisk is one line, that you can remove... I installed the windows having full 256MB of ram visible.

Autoexec.bat

SET SOUND=C:\PROGRA~1\CREATIVE\CTSND
SET MIDI=SYNTH:1 MAP:E
SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 H5 P330 T6
@ECHO OFF
SET PATH=C:\APPS\Q;C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND;C:\WINDOWS
SET TEMP=C:\TEMP
SET TMP=C:\TEMP
SET DIRCMD=/P /A /W /ON

C:\UTIL\TYAN\tyan_opt.exe SPL RC2T SD347 EXS CPR L2MB USB

LH C:\DOSDRV\CDROM\shsucdx.com /C /D:CD001 /E /M:30
LH /L:1 C:\WINDOWS\smartdrv.exe A- B- C+ D 2048 16

C:\APPS\XMSDSK\xmsdsk.exe 196608 R: /t /y
rem C:\DOSDRV\VIBRA16\CTCM\ctcm.exe

lh mode con codepage prepare=((850) C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\ega.cpi)
lh mode con codepage select=850
lh keyb sv,,C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\keyboard.sys

LH C:\DOSDRV\CTMOUSE\ctmouse.exe
LH C:\DOSDRV\4DOS\KSTACK.COM

Config.sys:

SWITCHES=/F /E
DOS=HIGH,UMB,AUTO
Country=358,850,C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\country.sys

DEVICE=C:\DOSDRV\UMBPCI\umbpci.sys /I=C800-DFFF /I=E000-EFFF
rem DEVICE=C:\DOSDRV\UMBPCI\lowdma.sys
DEVICE=C:\DOSDRV\HIRAM\hiram.exe
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOSDRV\EMM98\HIMEM.SYS

rem DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\HIMEM.SYS
rem DEVICE=C:\DOSDRV\EMM98\HIMEM.SYS
rem DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\EMM386.EXE NOEMS
rem DEVICE=C:\DOSDRV\EMM98\EMM386.EXE NOEMS NOTR
devicehigh=C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\display.sys con=(ega,,1)
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOSDRV\CDROM\cdrom.sys /D:CD001

SHELL=C:\DOSDRV\4DOS\4DOS.COM C:\DOSDRV\4DOS\ /P

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - And i intend to get every last bit out of it even after loading every damn driver!

Reply 22 of 33, by MXDash

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

SOLUTION FOUND!

OK, I know this thread is starting to get old but I feel obligated to tell people how this was fixed for those that need it in the future. I decided to take another go at resolving this head-scratcher and this is what I did:

1 - boot into windows 98 and remove everything inside "Autoexec.bat" and "Config.sys"
2 - install the official and essential updates in the "unofficial" Service pack 3
3- will need a system restart
done

So the thing that was causing me headaches was actually a known system bug in win98. Service pack 3 (which is an unofficial fan made program) has compiled some of the OFFICIAL win98 updates that was released back during win98's hayday. These updates is what fixed the problem. And yes, I know some of you are probably gonna point out that this is what I should've done right from the start, but the thing is, I don't like fan service packs, mods or patches on my retro machines, which is why I had no desire to install SP3, until I found out about the official updates included with the pack, and that I could avoid installing all the other junk, like directX9c, win2000 theme, blablabla.

Well, that's it. Thanks to everyone that helped. I wouldn't have done it without you guys.

😉

Reply 24 of 33, by leileilol

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
MXDash wrote on 2020-03-14, 21:10:

So the thing that was causing me headaches was actually a known system bug in win98.

As pointed out many times before in this thread, the problem lies in the old HIMEM.SYS loaded and has nothing to do with the alleged service packs. Win98's well known ram bug's more for >512MB and the "service packs" won't fix that either.

The only possible scenario I can imagine this occuring is if Win95/98 were performed as an 'upgrade' over an existing Win3.1 installation with DOS 6 on it prior and somehow the old CONFIG.DOS copied over the CONFIG.SYS. This would've never happened on a fresh formatted Win9x install.

Here's how to fix the "bug" in Windows 95:

Attachments

  • w95ram.png
    Filename
    w95ram.png
    File size
    5.01 KiB
    Views
    418 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception

by the way, DOSBox is not for running Windows 9x

Reply 25 of 33, by MXDash

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

What makes you think that it was step 2 and not step 1 that solved your problem?

As said in a previous post, if I only did step 1 then I would've still gotten the "windows protection error"

As pointed out many times before in this thread, the problem lies in the old HIMEM.SYS loaded and has nothing to do with the alleged service packs. Win98's well known ram bug's more for >512MB and the "service packs" won't fix that either.

I don't have more than 512MB. And as I stated in a previous post, I did change the bootup to use C:\Windows\HIMEM.SYS

The only possible scenario I can imagine this occuring is if Win95/98 were performed as an 'upgrade' over an existing Win3.1 installation with DOS 6 on it prior and somehow the old CONFIG.DOS copied over the CONFIG.SYS. This would've never happened on a fresh formatted Win9x install.

As said before. I installed nothing before or after installing windows 98.

Reply 26 of 33, by maxtherabbit

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
MXDash wrote on 2020-03-15, 15:25:

What makes you think that it was step 2 and not step 1 that solved your problem?

As said in a previous post, if I only did step 1 then I would've still gotten the "windows protection error"

no, you wouldn't have

Reply 27 of 33, by leileilol

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
MXDash wrote on 2020-03-15, 15:25:

As said before. I installed nothing before or after installing windows 98.

If that were true, there wouldn't be an old HIMEM to load and this thread wouldn't have existed.

by the way, DOSBox is not for running Windows 9x

Reply 28 of 33, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

It's worse than that. This is what he had in his Config.sys according to one of the ealier posts:

DEVICE=C:\ZIP\DOS622\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
DEVICE=C:\ZIP\DOS622\DOS\EMM386.EXE NOEMS NOMOVEXBDA

So it's not even a previous DOS installation (which Win9x would have gracefully converted from), but someone (OP or other) actually went and messed up the startup files after the fact.

And of course, just replacing/removing HIMEM and leaving the old EMM386 would give all crazy problems (like the 'protection error'). Removing them both would have solved all issues, but it seems that MXDash is determined not to read the advice thoroughly and just do things his own way. No problem, as long as it works, except that some folks reading this thread later might be confused by all the misinformation, like: Memmaker capped my RAM or you can get Windows protection error if you do not install some obscure and undisclosed update from the unofficial service pack or the like.

Reply 29 of 33, by MXDash

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

no, you wouldn't have

Well, it did give me the "windows protection error", so...I don't know what else you want me to say.

If that were true, there wouldn't be an old HIMEM to load and this thread wouldn't have existed.

As I said before, I ran MEMMAKER. It obviously used it's own version of HIMEN.SYS.

It's worse than that. This is what he had in his Config.sys according to one of the earlier posts: […]
Show full quote

It's worse than that. This is what he had in his Config.sys according to one of the earlier posts:

DEVICE=C:\ZIP\DOS622\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
DEVICE=C:\ZIP\DOS622\DOS\EMM386.EXE NOEMS NOMOVEXBDA

So it's not even a previous DOS installation (which Win9x would have gracefully converted from), but someone (OP or other) actually went and messed up the startup files after the fact.
And of course, just replacing/removing HIMEM and leaving the old EMM386 would give all crazy problems (like the 'protection error'). Removing them both would have solved all issues

That is exactly what I did. I removed everything in config.sys and autoexec.bat

but it seems that MXDash is determined not to read the advice thoroughly and just do things his own way. No problem, as long as it works, except that some folks reading this thread later might be confused by all the misinformation, like: Memmaker capped my RAM or you can get Windows protection error if you do not install some obscure and undisclosed update from the unofficial service pack or the like.

I did everything you guys told me to. Still got the boot error. I don't know what you guys want from me. I followed your advice and I get shat on because I didn't get the results you expected.

And just in case you don't know. The essentials updates that happens to be included in SP3 are official updates straight from Microsoft. Updates that were compiled by the SP3 authors to make it easier to install since Microsoft stopped support for win98.

Ultimately, I am grateful for your guys's help, but I don't want you people to misunderstand: I did not post my salution to be a replacement for your advice but just as an addition for those that run into this specific problem when the normal fix won't work for some reason.

Last edited by MXDash on 2020-03-16, 18:41. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 30 of 33, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
MXDash wrote on 2020-03-16, 15:31:

As I said before, I ran MEMMAKER. It obviously used it's own version of HIMEN.SYS.

That actually possibly explains it. If you ran MEMMAKER from C:\ZIP\DOS622\DOS, it probably found its HIMEM/EMM386 there and put them into your startup files. Of course, this is not something anyone should do after installing Win98.

Reply 32 of 33, by maxtherabbit

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
MXDash wrote on 2020-03-16, 15:31:

no, you wouldn't have

Well, it did give me the "windows protection error", so...I don't know what else you want me to say.

according to the original post where you mentioned "windows protection error" you said you only commented out HIMEM.SYS - not "removed everything"

Reply 33 of 33, by MXDash

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-03-16, 20:45:

according to the original post where you mentioned "windows protection error" you said you only commented out HIMEM.SYS - not "removed everything"

Yes, on my first attempt, and then on my second (after leileilol's advice) I did remove everything.