But why does the problem appears only after installing video drivers?
I subscribet to this Q being curious about how will be solved.
Main Topics
Browse All TopicsSimilar to http://www.experts-exchang
Any reference to "memtest" is a reference to the memory testing program at www.memtest86.com
The system consists of (key components listed only) :
Asus P4PE, bios v 1005 (bios@default settings)
2*512MB DDR333 ram sticks (doublesided), memtest'ed ok
Asus V9280 video card
P4 3GHz with hyperthreading (doesnt help much with win98se, but that's not the issue atm :)
After installing a fresh win98se, all is well
After installing the mainboard drivers (intel inf update), all is well
After installing nvidia's reference drivers (44.03 or 43.45) windows returns a "Windows protection error" at the first bootup.
This error doesnt appear if one of the 512MB sticks is removed, or even when it's replaced with a 256MB stick (single sided) (so 512MB and 768MB ram total works just fine).
All memory sticks have been tested using memtest86 and are ok. The whole setup has also been tested on an Asus p4B533 with a P4-2533MHz (no HT) and an Asus v8170/64M videocard) and the issue is exactly the same.
It would appear that win98se is unable to handle 1GB ram....for some reason, and only after trying to enable the videodriver (which is the blank screen before the desktop loads).
Is there some weird nvidia-1GB-win98se issue going on?
This Question has been solved and asker verified All Experts Exchange premium technology solutions are available to subscription members.
Experts Exchange has been collecting answers to technology questions since 1996…3 million and counting! If you have a question, chances are we already have your answer.
If you can't find the exact answer you're looking for, ask our exclusive community of 50,000 experts. You’ll get a personalized answer from a trusted professional.
Thousands of free tech tips, tricks, how-to’s and tutorials are available in our peer reviewed articles section. See for yourself how smart our experts are, no login required.
Access the answers to your technology questions today.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Members of the expert community talk about why the experience at Experts Exchange is different than what you will find anywhere else.

Try it out and discover for yourself.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Join the community of experts here and help other tech pros by answering question in your area of expertise. You can earn FREE access to all Experts Exchange's premium features and resources.
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? :)
This Microsoft Knowledge Base article explains about the memory limit for Win98 and the workaround to solve the problem:
http://support.microsoft.c
"Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed
> http://support.microsoft.c
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 :)
howdy neighbor,
these KBAs deal with a different errors relating to => 1gb of ram
http://support.microsoft.c
http://support.microsoft.c
http://support.microsoft.c
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
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.c
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/#
http://www.simmtester.com/
> 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/#
Linux-based bootdisk
> http://www.simmtester.com/
Freedos-based bootdisk
Neither memtester run under windows, which is specifically what i asked for.
>> 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 :)
Lee, I think we all knew that it was a memory conflict, but didn't know why. I provided links pertaining to win98 being unstable, if having 1gb or more of ram, & a workaround.
The MaxPhysPage=30000 was from kb 184447 -98 having 1gb of ram
The MaxPhysPage=40000 was from kb 304943 -98 having 1.5gb of ram
The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.
On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine).
Therefore if vcache reserves all of it & vid crd tries to use memory addressed in that range, it creates a conflict.
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.c
---------------
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/techn
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.
> 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.
Business Accounts
Answer for Membership
by: Huseyin1Posted on 2003-06-26 at 06:54:00ID: 8805467
Hi
........Yes im pritty sure win 98 cannot osupport this much RAM, for a fact, i know there is a limit in the amount of RAM win 98 can handle, but i dont know the limit, anyone klnow?
So all you left to do is either use less RAM (which is a shame) OR obviously get a newer OS
H