Windows98SE and 1GB ram results in a windows protection error at boot

But why does the problem appears only after installing video drivers?
I subscribet to this Q being curious about how will be solved.

it could be because the video drivers are somehow trying to be loaded into an inassessable part of the memory.  TBH with over 256mb you really should be running 2k or xp to get any effect.

Can't load something into a place you can't reach (and thus didnt know existed) :)
If win98SE can't address memory above 768MB, then why did it load the first time? Even with the mainboard drivers in place and functioning properly?
If the videodriver wants to load itself into ....someplace that doesnt exist (non-addressable memory) then why do the videodrivers work when the amount of memory is reduced?
It's clear that initializing the video drivers is what causes something to go horribly wrong....but what..and why? (and preferably, how to fix it? :)

> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912

As you might have noticed, the symptoms do not match....at all.
And therefor, this case is not about "the" issue about the memory limit for win98. Which is precisely the reason why I posted it :)

Even if the video loads with 768M of memory, there is a very good chance the machine will not run smoothly. Win98 does not like 512 + memory. If it does, you will be in a very small group of people.  ; )

howdy neighbor,
these KBAs deal with a different errors relating to => 1gb of ram
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=184447   "98 ram 1gb - insufficient mem err"
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=311871   "98 ram 1gb - bsod at boot"
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=304943   "98 ram 1.5gb - pc keeps rebooting at boot"

they all relate to this fix:
Use any text editor (such as Notepad) to open the System.ini file in the Windows folder.
Add the following line in the [386Enh] section of the file:
MaxPhysPage=30000  or  MaxPhysPage=40000

helo Neighbour2, what's your status?  Did any of the KB articles help you with the suggested fix?

I've been poking around in windows, without vgadrivers, to see what it does with it's memory.
Windows reports 1022.0MB memory, but when I run a Sisoft Sandra memory benchmark (use 50% option turned off), Sandra only reports having used 768MB.
Which makes me believe that half of windows knows there's 1GB of RAM, while the other half thinks there's 768......strange

All the msKB pages come with the solution to reduce the amount of physical pages windows can use, which wasn't really what I was looking for, but I'll give it a try since it doesnt look like I'll get any vga driver to work without crashing the machine.
Found a nice list which explains the MaxPhysPage variable in more detail : http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;181862

Are there any other memory-"testing" programs around that run under windows? I'm really curious to see how much RAM windows actually uses, even tho it states there's 1022MB

According to those links:
"Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle 1 GB or more of RAM. 1 GB or more of RAM can lead to potential system instability. "

MaxPhysPage=30000  limits the amount of physical RAM that Windows can access to 768 MB.
MaxPhysPage=40000  limits the amount of physical RAM that Windows can access to 1 GB

here's 2 memory testers that I know of:
http://www.memtest86.com/#download0
http://www.simmtester.com/page/products/doc/docinfo.asp

you can also use the system monitor to check system performance (start - programs - accessories - system tools) click Edit - Add Item to check select other areas to monitor.

> According to those links:
> "Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle 1 GB or more of RAM. 1 GB or more of RAM can lead to potential system instability. "
>
> MaxPhysPage=30000  limits the amount of physical RAM that Windows can access to 768 MB.
> MaxPhysPage=40000  limits the amount of physical RAM that Windows can access to 1 GB
And more, as you can see in the table at the link i posted.
The point is, part of windows reports that there's 1GB ram there, while if you let a program (for example Sisoft Sandra) do stuff with the memory, and then report how much mem it has used, it'll report 768MB...which is strange since it should be 1GB. (No MaxPhysPage setting used there)

> here's 2 memory testers that I know of:
> http://www.memtest86.com/#download0
Linux-based bootdisk
> http://www.simmtester.com/page/products/doc/docinfo.asp
Freedos-based bootdisk

Neither memtester run under windows, which is specifically what i asked for.

most ram testers check the ram while it isn't being used in order to perform a complete diagnostic run, so i'm not sure if you'll find anything under windows that when run won't be compromised by the o/s using resources.

I don't care :)
I've tested the ram itself already, and it's fine....i just want to know how much ram is actually available for use in windows.

RAM limit for windows 98SE is 512 MB RAM, anything over this will not let the system start.
H

> RAM limit for windows 98SE is 512 MB RAM, anything over this will not let the system start.

Definitely not true, as earlier posts have shown. If you don't know what you're talking about, please don't say anything at all.

If your ram tests fine & windows reports the correct amount, then maybe the problem lies with the Sisoft Sandra memory benchmark testing software.

Maybe there is a memory conflict with the vidcrd when there is more than 768mb of ram present.  Have you tried - System.ini [386Enh] section MaxPhysPage=30000 (768mb limit)?

That's probably the case, since when I replace one of the 512MB modules with a 256MB module (totalling 768MB) it all works.
But why would the videocard cause this memory conflict? (Or rather, it's drivers)

Probably because windows has problems with ram over 768mb, & the vid crd is trying to access an area that windows is using or doesn't recognize.  Have you tried using 1gb of ram but limiting to 768mb using the maxphyspage=30000?

Which is my comment from above, a long time ago... June 26th, at 12:48 PM EST.

>> Probably because windows has problems with ram over 768mb, & the vid crd is trying to access an area that windows is using or doesn't recognize.  Have you tried using 1gb of ram but
>> limiting to 768mb using the maxphyspage=30000?

> Which is my comment from above, a long time ago... June 26th, at 12:48 PM EST.

Indeed, and the comment of yaruar. And my response remains the same as well.
It seems that windows knows there's 1GB of RAM, but can't access the last 256MB of it. That would explain why Sandra only reports 768MB memory has been used. And if the videodrivers use memory somewhere at the end of the total available memory-range then windows is yet again confronted with the fact it can't touch that range and goes down.

If that's true, then running the system with MaxPhysPage=40000 (1GB) should also crash, while a value of 30000 (768MB) should work. I'll keep you posted :)

The MaxPhysPage=30000  (768mb) was from kb 184447 -98 having 1gb of ram
The MaxPhysPage=40000 (1gb) was from kb 304943 -98 having 1.5gb of ram

Helo neighbor2, Have you tried adding the "MaxPhysPage=30000" (768mb limit) in the [386Enh] section of the System.ini while having 1gb of ram yet?

Okay, time to bash some heads and finally prove that limiting (and thus never using the extra memory you put in your machine) your amount of physical pages is _not_ a needed measure.

Credits go to LeeTutor because the neccesary info came from the link he pasted (probably by accident :) but I don't care atm)

Source : http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912
---------------
MORE INFORMATION
Vcache is limited internally to a maximum cache size of 800 MB.

This problem may occur more readily with Advanced Graphics Port (AGP) video adapters because the AGP aperture is also mapped to addresses in the system arena. For example, if Vcache is using a maximum cache size of 800 MB and an AGP video adapter has a 128-MB aperture mapped, there is very little address space remaining for the other system code and data that must occupy this range of virtual addresses.
-----------------

Wellwell, lo' and behold. So if you're running win98 on a machine with 1GB, the vcache will allocate 800MB worth of addresses, and if you happen to have an AGP-adaptor, that'll allocate some
( see http://www.intel.com/technology/agp/tutorial/chapt_2.htm ) memory for the GART device driver.
And apparently, this is causes a resource problem :)
By limiting the maximum size of the vcache, this doesn't happen (I'm typing this on the computer in question which is now running nicely with nvidia's unified driver v44.03 @ 1024*768*32). Currently the [vcache] MaxFileCache setting is set to 256MB, which oughtta be enough for everyone :P and no problems have been detected as of yet.

I'm still going to find out why sandra reported only using 768MB while there's 1GB present. But I'll get back to that later.
ATM the issue at hand is solved. I'll divide the points tomorrow: 75% LeeTutor for having provided the eventual answer and 25% to mimicsu for the trouble :)
If you don't agree, let me know in time, and explain why you think it should be distributed otherwise.

That is fine.  I knew about the maxfilecache, but didn't want to repeat what Lee said, so I added the links about the maxphyspage.

So does this mean windows 98 can make use of 1gb of ram, or do you have to limit it :?

> So does this mean windows 98 can make use of 1gb of ram

Yes, win98se can boot up fine with 1GB ram, and it will report 1022MB ram being present for use.
I haven't verified if it actually uses all of it :) because the system i was trying it on isn't available to me anymore.

> or do you have to limit it

The only limiting needed is the MaxFileCache setting. This only limits the _use_ of your memory by windows' filecache, and not the amount of memory itself.