Any way to get QEMM 9.0 to recognize over 256 MB of RAM?

[jtr1962]

I'm sure most of the people here remember alternative memory managers like QEMM. I currently have my Win98SE systems set up to boot into a several different configurations-EMS, no EMS, CD drivers, no CD drivers, and each of these alternatives is available with both the default HIMEM and QEMM memory managers. Now the problem I have is that QEMM won't recognize more than 256 MB of RAM, and I have 768 MB installed(yes, I've tried all of the relevant program switches). I actually prefer QEMM over HIMEM, but not at the expense of 512 MB, so I only use it when I'm doing tasks which I know won't require much RAM. I'm using QEMM 9.0(also called QEMM97), and as far as I know, that was the last version ever made. My question is, does anyone know of any newer versions, or add-on programs that will let QEMM use all of my memory? As usual, I've searched the Web far and wide before posting this question.

 

[Mercutio]

That smacks of a hard limit to me. I'm honestly surprised that it recognizes that much.

 

[P5-133XL]

To my knowledge there is no newer version or add-in to QEMM. If you are asking to troubleshoot QEMM, then I need far more very detailed information.

 

[jtr1962]

Here's some information:

config.sys

[menu]
menuitem=QEMM, QEMM Memory Manager(No EMS, No CD)
menuitem=HIMEM, HIMEM Memory Manager(No EMS, No CD)
menuitem=QEMMEMS, QEMM Memory Manager(EMS, No CD)
menuitem=HIMEMEMS, HIMEM Memory Manager(EMS, No CD)
menuitem=QEMMCD, QEMM Memory Manager(No EMS, CD)
menuitem=HIMEMCD, HIMEM Memory Manager(No EMS, CD)
menuitem=QEMMEMSCD, QEMM Memory Manager(EMS, CD)
menuitem=HIMEMEMSCD, HIMEM Memory Manager(EMS, CD)
menudefault=HIMEM,10
menucolor=14,0

[QEMM]
device=dosdata.sys
device=qemm386.sys DMA=64 EMS:N RAM U:1M:768M
device=dos-up.sys

[HIMEM]
DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\himem.sys
DEVICE=C:\umbpci.sys

[QEMMEMS]
device=dosdata.sys
device=qemm386.sys DMA=64 ST:F RAM XSTI:13 XSTI:1A XSTI:76 U:1M:768M
device=dos-up.sys

[HIMEMEMS]
DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\himem.sys
DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\emm386.exe HIGHSCAN RAM I=B000-B7FF I=CA00-CBFF I=E000-EFFF FRAME=E000

[QEMMCD]
device=dosdata.sys
device=qemm386.sys DMA=64 EMS:N RAM U:1M:768M
device=dos-up.sys
devicehigh=teac_cdi.sys /D:IMESCD01

[HIMEMCD]
DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\himem.sys
DEVICE=C:\umbpci.sys
devicehigh=teac_cdi.sys /D:IMESCD01

[QEMMEMSCD]
device=dosdata.sys
device=qemm386.sys DMA=64 ST:F RAM XSTI:13 XSTI:1A XSTI:76 U:1M:768M
device=dos-up.sys
devicehigh=teac_cdi.sys /D:IMESCD01

[HIMEMEMSCD]
DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\himem.sys
DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\emm386.exe HIGHSCAN RAM I=B000-B7FF I=CA00-CBFF I=E000-EFFF FRAME=E000
devicehigh=teac_cdi.sys /D:IMESCD01

[COMMON]
DOS=HIGH,UMB
DEVICEHIGH=C:\WINDOWS\IFSHLP.SYS
DEVICEHIGH=C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\ansi.sys
DEVICEHIGH=C:\WINDOWS\setver.exe

autoexec.bat

@echo off
SET CTCM=C:\WINDOWS
SET SOUND=C:\PROGRA~1\CREATIVE\CTSND
SET MIDI=SYNTH:1 MAP:E MODE:0
SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 H5 P330 E620 T6
SET PATH=C:\DMI2SP\BIN;C:\WINDOWS;C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND;C:\;C:\DOS;C:\BC45\BIN

IF %config%==QEMM GOTO QUIT
IF %config%==HIMEM GOTO QUIT
IF %config%==QEMMEMS GOTO QUIT
IF %config%==HIMEMEMS GOTO QUIT
LH C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\mscdex.exe /D:IMESCD01 /E

:QUIT

LOADHIGH 2m
LOADHIGH 2mdos /FORMAT
prompt $e[1;32;40m$p$g
CTMOUSEP
SET WIN32DMIPATH=C:\DMI2SP
SET GMAXLOC=C:\Program Files\GMax\

The M/B is an AOpen AX6B with a 440BX chipset running a 450 MHz PII overclocked to 504 MHz. There is 768 MB of PC133 SDRAM(2x256MB, 2x128MB). Hard disks are Maxtor 5T040H4(40 GB, 7200 RPM) and 4G100J5(100 GB, 5400 RPM). I have a Lite-On 16X10X40X CD burner and a generic 52X CD-ROM drive. Video card is a Voodoo3000 AGP.

If you need any more info please let me know. I'm starting to think it's just a hard limit built into QEMM as Mercutio said but I could be wrong.

 

[jtr1962]

CORRECTION:

The QEMM switch U:1M:768M, which appears 4 times in the above config.sys file, should really be UR=1M:768M or USERAM=1M:768M

I cut and pasted my config and autoexec files, but I had taken out that particular switch because it didn't do anything, and put in back when I was posting. As usual, my memory was faulty and I got it wrong. :wink: Anyway, that is the correct switch, and it is supposed to force QEMM to scan the memory in the given address range. However, QEMM always stops scanning my memory at 262144K when it boots up, even with that switch.

 

[Cliptin]

This limit is within QEMM. There are no add-on programs to help you as QEMM is the program that would help. You would have to use a different program to get different funtionality. As you have noticed, newer versions of HIMEM will address at least up to 4G. Looks like you'll have to bite the bullet.

 

[jtr1962]

Looks like you'll have to bite the bullet.

What I thought was odd was that above 64 MB I believe the standard is called SXMS instead of XMS, so I assumed that any program capable of dealing with SXMS, as QEMM9.0 is, would recognize memory up to the limit of whatever the SXMS standard is(I'm guessing either 2GB or 4 GB). Apparently this isn't the case, and most of the other third party memory managers available only go to 64MB since they are designed mainly for DOS/Win3.1, where even 64 MB is usually overkill.

I think that the HIMEM that comes with Win98SE can recognize at least 2 GB, which for me is an interesting but useless bit of information. Various MSKB articles that I've read say Win98 is unstable with more than 1GB of physical RAM, even with the usual vcache fixes, and my M/B only supports up to 1 GB anyway. On the off chance that I ever need to do something requiring a few GB in the future, and buy a new MB/processor, then I'll have to go to another OS.

 

[Tea]

Far be it from me to talk about people who make odd-ball choices in their operating systems, but why are you running Win98 on that system anyway?

 

[jtr1962]

Far be it from me to talk about people who make odd-ball choices in their operating systems, but why are you running Win98 on that system anyway?

A couple of reasons:

1)I'm familiar with it, and it is fairly easy to configure.

2)I already own it.

3)It does what I need it to do, and is reasonably stable as long as I don't use IE.

4)I refuse to give M$ any more of my hard earned money(probably the main reason)

5)Any new OS may have issues with drivers, etc. I've read enough nightmare stories on these forums about what can happen when you upgrade to know that if it's working and does what you want, leave it alone. Many times just installing a service pack, not even a new OS, causes headaches.

6)A newer OS is more bloated, and will usually run slower. Some people using MS Train Sim are reporting lower frame rates under XP and 2000 than under Win98SE on the same machine.

7)A newer OS usually takes a while to get most of the "issues" with it sorted out, and I have no desire to pay for the "privilege" of being M$'s beta tester.

8)My fingers need their exercise regimen of stretching to hit CTRL-ALT-DEL a couple of times daily(just kidding).

I'm not averse to trying a new OS, but it will likely be some flavor of Linux, and I won't be able to use all my Windows programs, especially games, unless I dual boot, or the Linux Windows emulator improves. As far as upgrading to another version of Windows, it basically boils down to Windows 2000 only. I'm philosophically against PA(as you are), and will never use any product that requires it, which leaves XP out. Hopefully, M$ will wise up and remove PA in it's next OS, and then maybe I'll give it a try. As far as trying Win2000 now, my attitude is basically if I can get a pirated copy I will, but there's no way I'm spending money to get something which won't give me that much added functionality. Sure, Win2000 has nice features, it's more stable that Win98, but I don't want the headaches of upgrading at this point. As I said, if I ever have an application that really needs more than 1 GB of RAM, I'll bite the bullet and upgrade, but that would be newer system anyway. Right now, I'm hard pressed to think of any application I would need to use that would require even much over 512 MB. The Route Editor of MS Train Simulator sometimes uses over that, and editing very large pictures does as well, but even so, I haven't hit the swap file in so long that I don't even remember when the last time was.

Tea, I'm surprised at you for asking that question. Doesn't Tannin still use OS/2 at work because it does what he needs it to with a minimum of fuss?

 

[jtr1962]

Here's an example of just the type of upgrade horror story I was referring to:

http://forums.storagereview.net/viewtopic.php?t=5553

 

[timwhit]

JTR, instead of upgrading why don't you just create a test partition and install Win2k on it to see how you like it.

It really is night and day between win98 and 2k. For me 2k runs better, has better memory management, multitasks better, and never crashes.

If you want to stay legal you could probably pick up a legal copy of 2k on eBay for pretty cheap.

 

[Tea]

Excuse me, JTR. It was a light-hearted question. I didn't intend you to take it seriously. But I'm sort of glad you did, as your answers were more or less the very same answers I give to that very same question when people ask it of me. Nice to know that there are still a few throughly rational people left on this crazy planet.

 

[Tea]

Minor correction: add extra emphasis on stability to left-hand side of equation, subtract broad application compatibility from right-hand side. You win some, you lose some.

 

[time]

Looks like Tannin has competition for the 'Crustiest Computing Conservative' Mantle. :mrgrn:

Seriously, more power to you JTR, but remember that Win2k is scheduled to disappear this year, leaving nought but the dreaded XP. There are many people out there who reckon Win2k will be the last M$ OS they buy. It might behoove you to start saving.

 

[jtr1962]

I'll take that as a compliment.

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who feels that way about XP. I'll see if I can pick up a legal copy of Win2000 on eBay. In truth, I would like to try it, maybe just with a test partition in a dual boot configuration as timwhit suggested. I'm just not willing to spend retail for it, but $10 or $20 on eBay is reasonable, or perhaps one of my friends has a copy that they no longer need, which is how I get 75% of my software. He has upgrade fever, and when he upgrades, I usually end up with his old software, manuals and all. I do him a few favors in return, like building various one-off electronic gadgets. I'm not sure if he ever bought 2000 though. I might have to go the eBay route for that.

I concur with those people who say 2000 will be the last M$ OS they'll ever use. By the time it shows its age, there should be enough Linux aps to make the switch a no brainer.

 

[jtr1962]

Excuse me, JTR. It was a light-hearted question. I didn't intend you to take it seriously.

I know that. I wrote a semi-serious response anyway just to see what kind of feedback it would get. I have nothing against upgrading, but only if it offers me functionality I need, bug fixes, greater stability, or any combination thereof. I never upgrade just because a new version exists.

Nice to know that there are still a few throughly rational people left on this crazy planet.

Thanks for the compliment. I know it may be hard for an ape to comprehend sometimes, but there are a few rational people in this world. You just have to look hard for them.

 

[cquinn]

What I thought was odd was that above 64 MB I believe the standard is called SXMS instead of XMS, so I assumed that any program capable of dealing with SXMS, as QEMM9.0 is, would recognize memory up to the limit of whatever the SXMS standard is(I'm guessing either 2GB or 4 GB).

I'm not familiar with SXMS, but some new standards can be kept from
wide adoption because the older method is/was revised to provide
the same functionality over time that the new proposed standard was
supposed to address.

As to you semi-serious response:

1) You could also say it's fairly easy to configure. because you took the
time to be familiar with it.


Having once or twice been accused of being a rational person myself,
I won't argue your other points because you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Dozer]

I have Linux installed on one of my machines, and Windows XP on another...I keep finding myself gravitating toward the Linux machine. It just feels right... My web server runs better, is easier to configure, and a million times more stable than Windows XPee. Perhaps I'll be a 100% convert before long.

 

[Mercutio]

My philosophy is basically that, when I'm trying to get work done, it's usually less of a hassle on my linux boxes than on Windows. I get less weirdo errors, and once everything is configured the way I want it, I don't have to do any of the "fighting" I sometimes wind up doing on a Windows machine (where installing a program can change file associations, add spyware or even mess up my network configuration). All those things are a hassle, and yes, I can fix them as fast as they appear, but why should I have to?