Unofficial Service Pack for WIN98-SE

[Jim]

It works!!! My 98-SE boot is now typically using upwards of 430 Meg of Ram; and according to Norton "System Doctor", with ZERO swap file utilization. Uncached Ram may be slow; but it is faster than the swap file by a good margin.

[Guest]

if you use an k6-3+ or 2+ your ram IS buffered....

It works!!! My 98-SE boot is now typically using upwards of 430 Meg of Ram; and according to Norton "System Doctor", with ZERO swap file utilization. Uncached Ram may be slow; but it is faster than the swap file by a good margin.

[Jim]

Dear Guest: I will take your word for that because I don't know to tell you the truth. The Ram Hardware, Is Unbuffered ram, that much I do know; but what putting in a K6-3 does to that, I have no idea. This much I do know: Before I installed the "Unofficial Service Pack" my 98-SE boot NEVER once exceeded 261xxx K of Ram used. Now it has hit as high as 494 Meg. And System Doctor is reporting ZERO swap file usage.

[Guest]

here a site which underlying my statement...
http://www.stud.fernuni-hagen.de/q39981 ... cache.html

note the very last sentence on this site:
"...Another possibility is the K6/III, 2+ or III+.
These CPUs feature an on-chip 2nd-LC, covering at least 512 MB. This will not increase the cacheable area of the cache on the board itself, but it will now become 3rd-LC, with nearly no influence on the performance anymore."

Dear Guest: I will take your word for that because I don't know to tell you the truth. The Ram Hardware, Is Unbuffered ram, that much I do know; but what putting in a K6-3 does to that, I have no idea. This much I do know: Before I installed the "Unofficial Service Pack" my 98-SE boot NEVER once exceeded 261xxx K of Ram used. Now it has hit as high as 494 Meg. And System Doctor is reporting ZERO swap file usage.

[Jim]

Well I know that; but 1) what has that got to do with whether or not the Ram is "Buffered"? and 2) what has that got to do with the built in limitation of WIN98-SE not being able to use more than 256 Meg no matter how much you install? Sure it can report any amount of Ram you put in; but can only USE 256 Meg. (Until you install the "Unofficial Service Pack" which shunts the limit up to 4 Gig.) Cacheing and Using are two different things; and unless I am mistaken, (I could be), so are "Cacheing" and "Buffering".

[Guest]

well... seems my english is way to bad to get your point... or way to bad to explain my point to you

to be short:

with SP 2.0 for win98se: win uses up to 768mb RAM
with k6-3, k6-3+, k6-2+: this RAM is cached up to (at least) 512mb

---> no performance drop in win98se with more memory than 256mb

Well I know that; but 1) what has that got to do with whether or not the Ram is "Buffered"? and 2) what has that got to do with the built in limitation of WIN98-SE not being able to use more than 256 Meg no matter how much you install? Sure it can report any amount of Ram you put in; but can only USE 256 Meg. (Until you install the "Unofficial Service Pack" which shunts the limit up to 4 Gig.) Cacheing and Using are two different things; and unless I am mistaken, (I could be), so are "Cacheing" and "Buffering".

[Guest]

ahhh... and you are right... i speaking about caching... (buffering was the wrong term)

win is now able to use more memory... and this memory between 256mb-512mb leads not to an performance drop (mvp3,ali5) if you use an k6 with secondlevel cache...

puhhh... ok?

well... seems my english is way to bad to get your point... or way to bad to explain my point to you

to be short:

with SP 2.0 for win98se: win uses up to 768mb RAM
with k6-3, k6-3+, k6-2+: this RAM is cached up to (at least) 512mb

---> no performance drop in win98se with more memory than 256mb

Well I know that; but 1) what has that got to do with whether or not the Ram is "Buffered"? and 2) what has that got to do with the built in limitation of WIN98-SE not being able to use more than 256 Meg no matter how much you install? Sure it can report any amount of Ram you put in; but can only USE 256 Meg. (Until you install the "Unofficial Service Pack" which shunts the limit up to 4 Gig.) Cacheing and Using are two different things; and unless I am mistaken, (I could be), so are "Cacheing" and "Buffering".

[Jim]

I think we understand one another now. Truth to tell never heard of "Service Pack 2" for WIN98-SE. Unless the "Service Pack 2" that I thought was just for WINXP works for 98as well. In any case my 98 boot was limited to 256 Meg of USEABLE Ram until I installed the Unofficial WIN98 Service Pack. But no more.

[His Royal Majesty King V]

So, ah, from where can one download this unofficial service pack for 98SE. Er, download safely, anyway?

Thanks! I may well give it a shot with that Celeron system I've got . . and will actually soon finish putting together!

No need for it for my K6 systems, as what few 168-pin RAM sticks I have left don't seem to play nice with the FIC MVP3 boards.

The BX-board (Asus) the Celeron's in, though . . I could probably shove a piece of cardboard in the DIMM slots and it would recognize it as RAM....

[Jim]

Well if you enter "Search" here at K6Plus, and type in "unofficial" you will come up with a few results ; and a link that I think (bad memory) Nohr posted will be among them.

[TheBrain]

Hey guys, has anyone here tried to do this:

Edit System.ini file.

under [386Enh], add this instruction line:

ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1

Here you go!

[DonPedro]

Hey guys, has anyone here tried to do this:

Edit System.ini file.

under [386Enh], add this instruction line:

ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1

Here you go!

one installs tons of programs where others solve problems the elegant way! chapeau!!

[TheBrain]

Hey guys, has anyone here tried to do this:

Edit System.ini file.

under [386Enh], add this instruction line:

ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1

Here you go!

one installs tons of programs where others solve problems the elegant way! chapeau!!

I'm only sorry about being 4 months late.

[Jim]

Well perhaps it is a usefull thing to know; but in no way does it supplant the Unofficial service pack. The problem is not the size of the swap file, but rather the amount of RAM that WIN98-SE can utilize. The original built in limit was 256Meg. You could put more than that in the machine, and it would be recognized; but WIN98-SE was incapable of using more than 256Meg.

The Unofficial Service Pack changes that limit on the amount of RAM that 98-SE can use to at least 768 Meg; and possibly as high as 4 Gig. (My memory is not all it could be).

That is the point that I was making. With much more RAM available for use, there is less need for swap file usage. If one only has 256Meg available for use, and one limits the swap file usage, the only net effect I can see, is reduced performance.

[TheBrain]

Next week I'll read more about it and give you an answer, Jim. Just don't have much time right now.