Major new development in Windows 98 RAM memory capability patch has beendiscovered!

[98 Guy]

I'm re-posting the following to a few newsgroups where I know some
people still run win-98 as part of dual-boot setup, or have recently
moved away from win-98, or for general knowledge.

For at least the past 4 years, some windows-98 users have been able to
use up to 4 gb of ram by using these patches. Memory constraints has
long been seen as one of the major differences between win-9x/me and the
NT line of OS's. But clearly, as this patch indicates, it has been an
artificially-imposed constraint by Macro$haft.


----------------------------

It appears that some combination of a Windows-98 hot-fix and some
hacking at least 4 years ago, possibly by some Germans, has resulted in
a very simple set of 2 files that can allow Windows 98 to use up to 4 gb
of ram.

As time goes on we'll learn more about how this patch originated, but it
seems to have been circulating in German-language windows forums up
until now.

Thanks to Dencorso and his obtuse and irrational censorship as he lords
over the Windows-98 Forums at MSFN.org, he indicated that such a German
patch existed, and he labeled it as "warez". I then began a discussion
on "FoolsDesign.org" and the location of the patch files was posted
thanks to a user there. That thread can be found here:

http://www.foolsdesign.org/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=607

Once Dencorso found out about that thread, he removed his own MSFN post
where he described his censorship of the topic. He's so anal he even
censored himself!

Why on earth those moderators at MSFN think that Microsoft is in any way
concerned about Windows 9x today defies explanation. They are their own
worst enemies when it comes to helping advance and grow the Windows
9x/me enthusiast community. Their censorship efforts do nothing but
instill a culture of fear and intimidation and diminish the community at
MSFN. Hopefully more enthusiasts and win-98 users will discover the
free and uncensored windows 98 usenet groups and also the software forum
at foolsdesign.org.

Are you reading this Dencorso?

Will you and your other moderators change your ways and allow more free
and open discussion about how to advance Windows 9x/me - Microsoft be
damned?

Here is a link to the new VMM32.vxd and VMM.vxd files that allow Windows
98 to use all available ram on any motherboard you have, up to 4 gb:

[Link Removed]

Scroll down to the last item, which is:

4 GB Hauptspeicher für WIN 98SE ( mit vmm98sed.zip )hot!

But don't click on it. Instead, click on the small little "Download"
button right beside the "Details" button.

What you will download is Vmm98sed.zip (about 1mb in size). When you
unpack it, you will find a reproduction of the Windows directory tree
that helps tell you where to put these files.

Inside WINDOWS\SYSTEM\ you will find VMM32.VXD and you will copy that
file to your own WINDOWS\SYSTEM directory, over-writing the existing
file which you should first rename to VMM32.vxd.old.

You will also see a subdirectory called VMM32 which contains VMM.VXD
(which you should copy to your WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32\ directory, and
there will be no pre-existing file with that name.

There is some indicatation that a file called ENABLE.VXD should also be
placed in the WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32\ directory. That file is not
normally found on win-9x systems, but it is on the win-98 CD. Here is a
link to that file:

http://filepost.com/files/98e56ddd/ENABLE.VXD/

The two files VMM32.VXD and VMM.VXD seem to have been in circulation
since January 2010 because they were submitted to virustotal.com on that
date for malware analysis. That was the first and only time they have
been seen by Virustotal until I submitted them yesterday. The scan 4
years ago was negative, and so was my scan, so they are clean as far as
53 Anti-virus programs are concerned.

I have varified that they work, as I have 2 gb ram on my system now and
Windows System Properties shows 2046 mb available memory.

Any questions? Comments?

Post them! No censorship here!

 

[BillW50]

In 98 Guy typed:

Any questions? Comments?

Post them! No censorship here!

Have you actually found Windows 98SE benefit from more than 64MB of RAM?
I only have one Windows 98SE system still left and I rarely ever fire it
up anymore. But I did about 12 years ago change it from 64MB to 192MB of
RAM (supposedly the max for a Toshiba 2595XDVD). And I never saw any
gain in performance at all. I also had other machines that I don't
longer own that had experienced the same. While I like Windows 98SE and
all (it can play DVD fine with a very slow system for example that
2000/XP can't on the same machines). But my biggest beef with 9x is with
the resource limitations. As I could have like 3 to 6 applications
opened and the system maxed out on System Resources. I seem to recall
that 98SE only has a 64kb heap and that is all. Even having 4GB of RAM
won't change that problem one bit.

 

[Paul]

98 Guy wrote:

For at least the past 4 years, some windows-98 users have been able to
use up to 4 gb of ram by using these patches. Memory constraints has
long been seen as one of the major differences between win-9x/me and the
NT line of OS's. But clearly, as this patch indicates, it has been an
artificially-imposed constraint by Macro$haft.

I have varified that they work, as I have 2 gb ram on my system now and
Windows System Properties shows 2046 mb available memory.

Any questions? Comments?

Post them! No censorship here!

Have you verified the properties of the OS at all ?
Is there a 2GB limit for userspace on a single program ?

The mapping in 32 bit world, places a 4GB limit on the virtual
addressing (consistent with doing 32 bit math to make
addresses). And that is split between userspace and kernelspace.
So when you say Win98 can use 4GB, it's with the caveat
that there may be a single-program limit of 2GB (3GB with
Large_Address_Aware). You can get some idea of these limits,
from looking at the top section of the table here.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx

Assuming a worst case for the new behavior of Win98, it might
mean starting several programs, to use the majority of your
memory. I have nothing here which is large address aware
and thus can't even test it. None of my software has the
large Address Aware bit set.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_address_space

"On later 32-bit editions of Microsoft Windows it is possible
to extend the user-mode virtual address space to 3 GiB while
only 1 GiB is left for kernel-mode virtual address space by
marking the programs as IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and
enabling the /3GB switch in the boot.ini file."

And WinXP X32 can address more than 4GB. Right now, I have
8GB of RAM installed, and the DataRAM RAMDisk is using the
top 4GB of space, while the bottom 4GB (3.2GB) is used for programs.
That's possible, because PAE is present in SP3. DataRAM runs in
Ring0 as a driver, which is how it can get up there. The
Microsoft memory license applies to Ring3 and running
programs in userspace. With PAE, WinXP x32 could make some
usage of RAM (for that RAMdisk), all the way up to 64GB.
Obviously, with an old chipset, the physical memory slots
can't handle that. My fastest Win98 setup, is limited to 2GB
by the hardware memory controller. 4GB of DIMMs will actually
register properly, but the BIOS doesn't know how to set the
memory timing properly, and the memory throws errors.

There are many more words that could be written about
this discovery - a proper characterization of whether
the change is really useful or not.

For example, test a 3D game that uses a lot of memory.
Is the AGP GART addressing issue solved by this patch ?
Or is the memory available to a 3D game much less than 4GB/3GB/2GB ?
Does a 3D game crash with the patch installed ?

Lots of characterization work remains - by someone
lucky enough to own a 4GB containing machine with Win98
on it. Everyone remembers how twitchy Win98 was, without
that patch in place. And I refuse to believe every last
twitch will be removed by it. It would require removing
how the AGP GART mapping works, how some sort of system
file cache works, and I can't believe those Germans would be
able to re-engineer the entire OS. When guys fix stuff
by patching out branches with NOPs, that doesn't
achieve re-architecting.

If the VMM32.VXD was an entirely different size, then
I might believe it was written from scratch.

Paul

 

[98 Guy]

Have you actually found Windows 98SE benefit from more than 64MB
of RAM?

That is such a dumb question.

I seem to recall that 98SE only has a 64kb heap and that is all.
Even having 4GB of RAM won't change that problem one bit.

See, this is where you continue to spread misinformation about win-98
system resources.

There are several heaps, and a big difference between Win-95 and Win-98
is that all but one of the heaps was changed to 32-bits in Windows 98.
Meaning they can address 2 gb worth of heap space.

Windows 98 retains some or most of the original win-3.x / win-95 heaps
for compatibility reasons. If you are still running 16-bit
applications, they will use those heaps.

READ THE FOLLOWING and, once and for all, understand how these resources
work, and why Win-98 is more similar to NT in this regard:

==================
One of the ironies of Windows memory mamagement is that, for many
computers, certain small pieces of memory are more important than the
entire memory system. These small pieces comprise the system
resources. They're special memory areas called heaps that Windows 98
uses to store data structures for things like windows, menus, toolbars,
fonts, ports and more. The irony lies in the frustrating fact that your
computer can have megabytes of free memory, but if the system resource
heaps reach their limits, your programs may crash and windows itself may
refust to run.

The good news is that Windows 98's system resource management has been
much improved over that of Windows 3.x. The latter used four 16-bit
heaps that could hold a mere 64 kb of data each. By contrast, Windows
98 mostle uses a single 32-bit heap, which is capable of addressing
2GB. For compatibility reasons, Win-98 retains one of the old 16-bit
heaps.

This enabled the win-98 designers to greatly increas the system resource
limits. For example, in Win 3.x you could install no more than 250 or
300 fonts, but with win-98 that number is closer to 1000.

Besides increasing the heap size, win-98 continued the system resource
management improvements that were introduced in win-95:

- Win-98 monitors and, if necessary, cleans up after 32-bit
applications. Win-98 examines the heap after a 32-bit program shuts
down and then removes any allocated resources that remains on the heap.

- 16-bit applications often intentionally leave some resources allocated
after shutdown so that other processes can use those resources. This is
efficient, so Windows 98 waits until all 16-bit applicatiosn have been
closed before it rmoved allocates resources from the heap.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=7eo...=PA299&dq=windows+98+heap+size&source=bl&ots=
zyZp5cHaYq&sig=5pqlvDiIAVcmfmnDNbonWkYeSwY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=79J0U7CuBtKM7AbY9YGwCg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=
onepage&q=windows%2098%20heap%20size&f=false

That's a single google link, in case you want to re-assemble it and look
at it.

The Unauthorized Guide to Windows 98
By Paul McFedries
======================

This is one of the reasons why Win-98 got a bad rap for stability during
it's first few years of life. Many people were still running 16-bit
software held over from the Win 3.x days, and they rarely had more than
64 mb of installed ram.

 

[casey.o]

I'm re-posting the following to a few newsgroups where I know some
people still run win-98 as part of dual-boot setup, or have recently
moved away from win-98, or for general knowledge.

For at least the past 4 years, some windows-98 users have been able to
use up to 4 gb of ram by using these patches. Memory constraints has
long been seen as one of the major differences between win-9x/me and the
NT line of OS's. But clearly, as this patch indicates, it has been an
artificially-imposed constraint by Macro$haft.

I dont know about this patch, but may check into it. However, Win98
runs just fine for me, on a 1ghz Pentium 3 with 512megs ram.

I'm putting together a 3ghz computer, Pentium 4, using one of the last
of the IBM m-boards that support Win98, which is the 865 board. I
currently dual boot to Win2000, but when this new machine is completed.
I want to change my dual boot to XP.

To run the XP boot, I'd like to install at least 2GB Ram. I know XP
will benefit from this, but I question if Win98 will have problems with
this extra Ram. If W98 just ignores the additional Ram, that is fine
with me, because like I said, it runs fine on the 512M Ram. But I have
been concerned that the extra Ram will cause problems with W98.

Has anyone done this? I'd like to know what to expect. If there will
be a problem, I'll probably just leave the Ram at 512M, since my main
use will be for running Win98 on this machine.

Thanks

 

[98 Guy]

I dont know about this patch, but may check into it. However, Win98
runs just fine for me, on a 1ghz Pentium 3 with 512megs ram.

It won't hurt - especially if your new machine has more than 1 gb of
ram.

If you don't want to use this patch, but still want to run win-98 on a
machine with more than 1 gb of ram, then look at this:

http://www.japheth.de/Jemm.html

Download HimemX from http://japheth.de/Jemm.html

(or here: http://rayer.g6.cz/os/himemx33.zip)

Copy himemx.exe to win98 directory

Add this line in your config.sys:

DEVICE=C:\WIN98\HIMEMX.EXE

There are a few other details about how exactly to use it, but the
bottom line is that himemx can limit the amount of RAM that win-98 can
"see" if you have more than 1 or 1.5 gb of real physical ram in the
system.

 

[BillW50]

In 98 Guy" <"98 typed:

That is such a dumb question.


See, this is where you continue to spread misinformation about win-98
system resources.

There are several heaps, and a big difference between Win-95 and
Win-98 is that all but one of the heaps was changed to 32-bits in
Windows 98. Meaning they can address 2 gb worth of heap space.

Windows 98 retains some or most of the original win-3.x / win-95 heaps
for compatibility reasons. If you are still running 16-bit
applications, they will use those heaps.

READ THE FOLLOWING and, once and for all, understand how these
resources work, and why Win-98 is more similar to NT in this regard:

==================
One of the ironies of Windows memory mamagement is that, for many
computers, certain small pieces of memory are more important than the
entire memory system. These small pieces comprise the system
resources. They're special memory areas called heaps that Windows 98
uses to store data structures for things like windows, menus,
toolbars, fonts, ports and more. The irony lies in the frustrating
fact that your computer can have megabytes of free memory, but if the
system resource heaps reach their limits, your programs may crash and
windows itself may refust to run.

The good news is that Windows 98's system resource management has been
much improved over that of Windows 3.x. The latter used four 16-bit
heaps that could hold a mere 64 kb of data each. By contrast, Windows
98 mostle uses a single 32-bit heap, which is capable of addressing
2GB. For compatibility reasons, Win-98 retains one of the old 16-bit
heaps.

This enabled the win-98 designers to greatly increas the system
resource limits. For example, in Win 3.x you could install no more
than 250 or 300 fonts, but with win-98 that number is closer to 1000.

Besides increasing the heap size, win-98 continued the system resource
management improvements that were introduced in win-95:

- Win-98 monitors and, if necessary, cleans up after 32-bit
applications. Win-98 examines the heap after a 32-bit program shuts
down and then removes any allocated resources that remains on the
heap.

- 16-bit applications often intentionally leave some resources
allocated after shutdown so that other processes can use those
resources. This is efficient, so Windows 98 waits until all 16-bit
applicatiosn have been closed before it rmoved allocates resources
from the heap.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=7eo...=PA299&dq=windows+98+heap+size&source=bl&ots=
zyZp5cHaYq&sig=5pqlvDiIAVcmfmnDNbonWkYeSwY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=79J0U7CuBtKM7AbY9YGwCg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=
onepage&q=windows%2098%20heap%20size&f=false

That's a single google link, in case you want to re-assemble it and
look at it.

The Unauthorized Guide to Windows 98
By Paul McFedries
======================

This is one of the reasons why Win-98 got a bad rap for stability
during it's first few years of life. Many people were still running
16-bit software held over from the Win 3.x days, and they rarely had
more than 64 mb of installed ram.

Whether IE6, Outlook Express 6, MS Office 2000, and Media Player 9
contains 16 bit code or not, I don't know. All I can tell you is I run
out of System Resources just by running the above applications. And that
link above, Google won't let me see it. This link below will explain to
you why I run out of System Resources all of the time. And what
applications do you run under Windows 98 that benefit from more than
64MB of RAM?

http://www.apptools.com/rants/resources.php

 

[98 Guy]

Whether IE6, Outlook Express 6, MS Office 2000, and Media Player 9
contains 16 bit code or not, I don't know. All I can tell you is I
run out of System Resources just by running the above applications.
And that link above, Google won't let me see it. This link below
will explain to you why I run out of System Resources all of the
time.

http://www.apptools.com/rants/resources.php

I'll have more of a look at that and respond later.

And what applications do you run under Windows 98 that benefit from
more than 64MB of RAM?

I have the following programs running:

Outlook 2000
Netscape Communicator 4.79
Firefox 2.0.0.20
VLC media player 2.0.8
Abyss Web Server (for all the 127.0.0.1 entries in my HOSTS file)
Norton 2002 System Information (so I can give you a ram-usage report)

When you add stuff like shicome.exe, driveicon.exe, ddhelp.exe,
wmiexe.exe, pstores.exe, tapisrv.exe, and a few other things, Norton
System Information says:

Total Physical Memory: 2046 mb
Total Windows Memory: 2161 mb (must be including some swap file)
Free: 2005 mb
Used: 157 mb

So would I want to only have 64 mb of physical ram at this point? I'd
say no.

You might be fooled into thinking you only need 64 mb because your
hard-drive swap file is being used heavily by Windows to make up for the
ram your system is lacking.

This is a relatively light program load. As the night goes on, I'll be
opening more apps, and using more ram.

Win-98 resource meter says:

System Resources: 59% free
User Resources: 59% free
GDI Resources: 74% free

 

[rloew]

I am the designer of that Patch. The latest version is available at rloew1.no-ip.com.
The operators of that German site illegally hacked an early version of my Patch.
98 Guy is an Internet Troll that has been promoting this Warez version for years.
Dencorso knew that it was Warez and banned 98 Guy.
If you go to the Fool's Design link you will see that he initiated the Thread and that the links to the German site have been purged.