ATI 9800Pro 128 MB Memory Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter David B. Workman Sr.
  • Start date Start date
D

David B. Workman Sr.

Just added the 9800 Pro to my computer, Pent. 4, 2.53 Ghz, 786 PC 2100 Ram.
Have over 140 GB Hard Drive, and a Gigabyte Titan 533 (GA-8IEX) MO. All
drivers up to date, Bios current. Since adding the Radeon, keep getting
Win32 "There is not enough memory to run this program. Quit one or more
programs, and then try again." Now, I have no behind the scens programs
running, except explorer, as I shut down Zone Alarm, Anti-Virus, Messenger.
This does not happen with all programs, just on like a regsanw command. or a
Powerquest boot. Unable to reinstall windows over the system, no memory. I
am using Windows ME. I figured to remove Windows handling my Virtual
Memory, helps for awhile, then back to the same thing. Have reinstalled the
operating system five times, have dual boot, and both systems the same way.
Any ideas, or past experience problems. Like the clairity of the 9800Pro,
but want the system to operate in every aspect...Thanks so much for your
insight. David
 
David B. Workman Sr. said:
Just added the 9800 Pro to my computer, Pent. 4, 2.53 Ghz, 786 PC 2100 Ram.
Have over 140 GB Hard Drive, and a Gigabyte Titan 533 (GA-8IEX) MO. All
drivers up to date, Bios current. Since adding the Radeon, keep getting
Win32 "There is not enough memory to run this program. Quit one or more
programs, and then try again." Now, I have no behind the scens programs
running, except explorer, as I shut down Zone Alarm, Anti-Virus, Messenger.
This does not happen with all programs, just on like a regsanw command. or a
Powerquest boot. Unable to reinstall windows over the system, no memory. I
am using Windows ME.
Click to expand...

Using Windows ME is a major problem here. 3 of 4 people I know who've used
this OS have run into major problems similar to yours when doing graphics
work, video editing, hardware upgrading, or just plain gaming, etc. The one
who does not have problems is usually just web browsing and word processing.
Windows ME is notorious for memory issues. And other problems. Do yourself a
favor and ditch it. The user interface is Windows 2000 Professional is
identical to ME. XP is simply 2000 with a different user interface and
better device/gaming support.
 
It sounds like ME has not automatically allocated the proper resources to
the video card. You could try to uninstall the drivers in Add/Remove
Programs, then the card in Device Manager, then reboot the machine and let
it redetect the video card. When ME asks you for the disk to install the
drivers just hit cancel and let the machine boot up using the stock video
drivers. Then install the latest ATI video drivers for Win 9X or ME.
Hopefully this solves the problem.

But the previous posters suggestion that you move to a newer operating
system is a better solution I think. For modern PC's like yours, the driver
support in modern OS's is much better and Windows 2000 and XP easily support
large hard drives and mega amounts of memory very efficiently. I have used
both 2000 and XP and prefer XP because it's interface is a little more
refined than 2000. 2000 looks like ME and, I think, is more suited for the
business environment. XP on the other hand is more consumer friendly with
built in features for handling photos and video. If you're not in a
corporate environment XP Home is all you need.

JK
 
And yes you are correct if he goes xp it will be better as xp can use a
shitload of memmory with out problems. Like 98 up to winme cant use more
then 512meg. Ive seen other posts of problems that relate to this highly in
this NewsGroup ........
 
I've been using 768MB to 1024MB on Windows 98SE for years now. Guess you got
that wrong champ.
Like 98 up to winme cant use more
then 512meg. Ive seen other posts of problems that relate to this highly in
this NewsGroup ........
Click to expand...


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
 
Wblane said:
I've been using 768MB to 1024MB on Windows 98SE for years now. Guess
you got that wrong champ.



-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Click to expand...

Is also flaky at 1GB:

http://tinyurl.com/2vv29

Can be done though but why anyone would persist with an inferior
operating system like Windows 98, SE or ME is utterley beyond me.

regards

@ndrew
 
LostSoul said:
And yes you are correct if he goes xp it will be better as xp can use
a shitload of memmory with out problems. Like 98 up to winme cant use
more then 512meg. Ive seen other posts of problems that relate to
this highly in this NewsGroup ........
Click to expand...

512 megs is incorrect. With a registry change (some call it 'hack'),
Win 98SE and ME can use up to 768 megs. Any more than this and I saw
problems. That's ok, in those days I used a P3-800 with 768 megs. The
BX440 chipsets wouldn't allow more ram than that on those ol ABit mobos
(BH6 1.0, BH6 1.2, BE6-II, BF6). Without the reghack, the practical
limit is 512 megs.

XP will recognize 4 gigs.

McG.
 
@ndrew said:
Is also flaky at 1GB:

http://tinyurl.com/2vv29

Can be done though but why anyone would persist with an inferior
operating system like Windows 98, SE or ME is utterley beyond me.

regards

@ndrew
Click to expand...

Because there was a time, and not so long ago at that, when the ability
to use more than 512 megs of ram was available, but only WIn 98, 98SE,
ME were what was available (affordable) to a home user.
Now, with Win 2000, Win XP, newer versions of Linux, affordable
operating systems allow use of far more than even 1 gig of ram.
McG.
 
Well, I sure wish I had asked you all earlier. I did most of what each of
you said. The only thing that worked, was to remove one stick of Ram. You
hated to do that, and who would ever think that having less, is in fact
better. Will ponder a new operating system, but then theres always the
next issue, what won't work with that, like my 740 Epson. I thank each of
you for taking an interest in my question, and your direction. I have no
idea why ATI after 4 messages, couldn't have it it right away. Thanks
again! David
 
I've been using 768MB to 1024MB on Windows 98SE for years now. Guess you got
that wrong champ.



-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Click to expand...
The OS itself will NOT use the extra ram, its relegated to disk cache etc...
 
Just wanted to state for the record, and anyone else who may be reading. I
was using 786 MB of Ram, with the Windows ME operating system, for years and
had NO problem untill I installed the Radeon Card. That, changed,
everything. Now, after removing the third stick of Ram, the system is
faster, than it ever was. I think the extra Ram, slowed everything down, I
just din't realize it. So, anyone who has more than 512 MB of Ram, running
Windows ME, try taking some out for a day, and check your performance....
Thanks again
 
On what do you base this? How do you know this? Is this just your opinion? I
know that Sisoft Sandra, Norton Utilities and Far Cry recognize the fact I have
a gig of RAM installed in my 98SE box.
The OS itself will NOT use the extra ram, its relegated to disk cache etc...
Click to expand...


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
 
Heres one link at least on the subject

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q253912

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;184447
Click to expand...


Your first link may also explain the OP's problem, GMAN: "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."

patrickp

(e-mail address removed) - take five to email me
 
Back
Top