installation block

October 29, 2011 at 11:34:19
Specs: Windows 98
Insufficent memory to initialize Windows quit one or more memory-resident programs or rename unnecessary utilities from your CONFIG.SYS and
AUTOEXEC.BAT files, and restart your computer
Note: leave idle or click shut down

See More: installation block

Report •


#1
October 29, 2011 at 13:02:58
Basically you need to install more RAM as there's not enough to run Windows.

Report •

#2
October 29, 2011 at 19:27:08
How much ram do you have? It may be too much:

http://forums.techarena.in/troubles...


Report •

#3
October 30, 2011 at 09:13:51
There seems to be more suffcient memory. Still dont understand why it give the error CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files. Is there some one with technical skills who can clear off the Insufficent memory from Ms-dos and who to introduce a 512 mb ddr2/3 in a prevous slot of ram

Report •

Related Solutions

#4
October 30, 2011 at 16:52:06
Ignore the references to config.sys and autoexec.bat. That's just a default message and doesn't mean the 98 installation knows what's wrong.

How much ram is installed? How fast is the cpu? And which version of 98 are you trying to install?


Report •

#5
November 5, 2011 at 18:14:44
Another dead poster LOL.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#6
November 6, 2011 at 18:36:15
Fixing computers must be a dangerous business. . .

Report •

#7
December 10, 2011 at 12:39:21
How much ram is installed? How fast is the cpu? And which version of 98 are you trying to install?

RAM 4 Gb, 1GHz, win 98 se


Report •

#8
December 10, 2011 at 14:38:51
Jerry8

Win98SE will not handle 4GB RAM without issues. 512M is the max without tweaks.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#9
December 10, 2011 at 14:54:57
Jerry, where are you. . Neptune?

Besides the ram issue, if you have a PC with 4 gig of it you may have a pretty big hard drive too. If so you need to keep the partitions on it no larger than about 120 gig. And you'll need the updated or ME version of fdisk for drives larger than 64 gig.


Report •

#10
December 10, 2011 at 17:29:24
Cripes, you've been away so long I thought you were someone else LOL.

Yes W98, perhaps surprisingly, reports "insufficient RAM" where there is too much for it.
It just doesn't understand figures in GB, which would have seemed massive in those days.

We'll keep watching.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#11
December 11, 2011 at 07:07:26
hello DAVEINCAPS. I been busy with life. Terrible those days which come along.
Understand the high capacity RAM and Hard disk drive.
I have a question. How come on a 40 GB Hard disk, there is still the problem error to be able to partition the 40 GB Hard disk. I was able to partition it by making it a slave and using partition manager.

Can you tell me why the 40 GB did not originally be partition.

For the reply. I did reply but the message did not post on the forum !!!

Jerry


Report •

#12
December 11, 2011 at 07:13:52
Derek December 10, 2011 at 14:38:51 Pacific

Jerry8

Win98SE will not handle 4GB RAM without issues. 512M is the max without tweaks.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks

Question, so you do confirm in practice. 512MB will be enough. So what happens if i buy a 512MB and the same MS-DOS error appears? Just like the 40 GB small hard disk capacity does not partition properly!

Jerry


Report •

#13
December 11, 2011 at 07:14:44
hello tries you link but when in the page to further to the other links it doesn't work.

Jerry

refer to DAVEINCAPS October 29, 2011 at 19:27:08 Pacific

How much ram do you have? It may be too much:

http://forums.techarena.in/troubles...



Report •

#14
December 11, 2011 at 08:13:26
DAVE's link is:

"http://forums.techarena.in/troubleshoot-98/980407.htm"

Seems to work by clicking his link, not copy & pasting.

The original discussion of the problem from Microsoft is here:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184447

As mentioned above, you have WAY too much RAM for Win98; that machine was meant for something like XP. But you may find some info in this posting:

http://www.computing.net/answers/wi...

(click the link, don't copy & paste)

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."


Report •

#15
December 11, 2011 at 11:23:17
You shouldn't have had any problem partitioning a 40 gig drive with FDISK as long as the bios sees it OK and it's not a SATA drive.

As far as the ram issue, if you could graph windows 98 system efficiency vs amoiunt of ram you'd see that efficiency increases as you increase ram. It reaches a maximum and starts dropping again leaving a graph somewhat like a bell-shaped curve. The point of maximum efficiency is not 512 meg. 512 is closer to the endpoint of the bell curve. Maximum efficiency is probably in the area of 256-400 meg, although that would depend on your hardware and whatever software you're running.

You can modify some of the startup files so that 98 will run OK on more than 512 but you have to get it installed before you can modify those files. That's why you need to temporarily drop the ram to do the installation.

I'm not sure if modifying those files will increase efficiency above what it would be in the 256-400 meg area but once it's done you can run 98 with a gig and more of ram.

But even if you get 98 installed you're going to have a problem finding drivers. Most motherboard manufacturers selling boards that can accomodate 4 gig of ram aren't going to bother writing 98 drivers. If you really want to run 98 you're probably better of just getting an old pentium 3 machine and installing it there. Or you could install XP or whatever OS is appropriate for that board and install 98 in a VM environment.


Report •

#16
December 11, 2011 at 15:38:00
Just an aside:
DAVEINCAPS - Have you a link to that bell curve, sounds interesting?

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#17
December 12, 2011 at 09:05:24
There are SEVERAL motherboards that have Windows 98 drivers and also support 4GB of RAM. Take a look at boards using the Intel 865 and 875 chipsets.

See the last table on this page.
http://www.intel.com/support/mother...

And that's just the boards manufactured by Intel itself, not counting other companies such as DFI, MSI, SOYO, etc etc.

Also it doesn't take into account other chipset manufacturers besides Intel.


Come on guys, stop repeating myths about Windows 98. Windows 98 CAN be patched to support up to 4GB of RAM.
http://rloew1.no-ip.com

And I really hate to argue about it, I know you guys mean well, but frankly I think this "bell curve" idea is rubbish. If you can substantiate this opinion with some objective research that is not biased against Windows 9x, I'll be glad to take a look at it. But in my experience, there is no such thing.


Report •

#18
December 12, 2011 at 10:35:26
LoneCrusader

It is the operating system (W98) that doesn't naturally understand large amounts of RAM and that is no myth. However, as implied in my #8 there are ways of tweaking it.

Sure, I hadn't run into the packages you unearthed but have modified system.ini in the past for RAM above 512M.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#19
December 12, 2011 at 15:31:19
Derek, the bell curve analagy is my own invention based on experience. We know 98 is going to run doggy with the minimum--24 meg I think for SE--so adding some is going to increase performance. But around 512 we start getting memory errors as 98 needs more resources to address the memory so performance suffers. So somewhere between 24 meg and 512 is the ideal amount of ram to give the best performance. I compared it to a bell shaped curve since that figure appears so often in probability and statistics. It may not be that shape at all. I just wanted to emphasize that the 'law of diminishing returns' applies also to ram and that even if you make a point to install just 512 to avoid those problems you may still not have as good performance as you would if there was less than that installed.

And of course that applies to performance before adding any software modifications.

(I apologize for any confusion.)


Report •

#20
December 12, 2011 at 17:27:23
Thats quite clear, thx DAVE. In fact I didn't notice much improvement in my ole W98SE when I doubled the RAM from 256M to 512M - which kinda fits with what you say.

In fact I've still got it, online with Opera browser and Avast AV. Sometimes not sure what to do with it tho LOL. My current work horse is XP. Right now XP does all I can do on our Vista & Win7. In the end, like my W98, it will probably be the hardware that largely pushes me on to Win7 or 8 for everyday use (and maybe the goodies they can then put onto it).

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#21
December 12, 2011 at 20:25:39
Yeah, I had to pretty much shelve my 98 machine too but that's because web sites practically insist you use something newer than IE 6 and I guess I'm too stubborn to use an alternate browser.

I had 128 meg in my 98 machine for awhile and then added another 128 just because I had it open one day and had another 128 stick. I did notice that mp3's would play smoother with the 256--less skipping if I was opening an IE window or starting another application. But I didn't notice any other difference, and that was just bumping it up to 256.


Report •

#22
December 13, 2011 at 07:59:30
hello how do you modified system.ini in the past for RAM above 512M. Is there a link available.

Report •

#23
December 13, 2011 at 12:16:42
You might want to check the link that LoneCrusader provided. I'm not familiar with it so can't provide other info on that approach.

I uploaded some screenshots that someone had on the internet for awhile on specific changes to make to system.ini for 1 gig:

http://members.driverguide.com/driv...

The vcache setting would probably be different for 4 gig but you can get an idea from that. I probably still have the ram.zip on my computer and can send it if you're not a driverguide member.

Here's a couple other microsoft links that might help:

http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/181862

Also, there was someone who often posted here and some other help sites who knew quite a bit on that subject. His screen name was whitphil. You may want to google something like whitphil ram and check some of his old postings.


Report •

#24
December 13, 2011 at 12:22:54
I personally do not recommend the SYSTEM.INI modifications. I tried them years ago and I couldn't get them to work. Anyhow, it will only work for RAM up to approximately 1.5 GB.

In order to use more than that, the only answer is to purchase a third-party patch. See my links above.

Have a look at this thread at MSFN. We have attempted to collect links to all information relevant to running 9x with more than 512MB of RAM.
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118...


Report •

#25
December 13, 2011 at 12:35:15
I second the remarks re WhitPhil - that guy really knew his stuff. However, the third party patches might not have been around in those days, so that ought to be borne in mind when reading his old posts.

The tweak I used mostly was that to vcache and this worked for me. However RAM of more than 1.5GB was still unheard of then and, yes, I have heard previous mention of its limitation on larger RAM sizes.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#26
December 13, 2011 at 12:55:12
@Jerry8

Actually, since you are trying to do a clean installation here, there's a very simple way to test whether or not the third-party patch will solve your issue.

There is a Demo version of the patch that will allow your system to run for 10 minutes with the extra RAM to verify that everything else is working.

Go here
http://rloew.x10hosting.com/Program...

Download the Demo version of the patch and install it. Report back if it allows you to get past the "Insufficient memory" error. You probably wont be able to finish the installation in the 10 minutes allowed, but this will determine whether or not the patch will help you.


Report •

#27
December 14, 2011 at 14:11:55
hello, got a 512 mb RAM and the OS loaded with some minor error which is currently being look at. As the post are feed in. Would like to take a pause for now. Don't know if there will be continuity due to certain reasons as time management.

If don't hear from me Happy Christmas and Happy New Year.


Report •

#28
December 14, 2011 at 15:26:58
Thx for update. Having got it running it is now easier to try the various suggested fixes then plonking the large RAM back in to see if they have helped.

Seasons greetings

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#29
January 2, 2012 at 08:43:28
@Derek windows 98 ran on a 1gb of ram just fine with me.

Report •

#30
January 2, 2012 at 10:10:51
Re #29
Interesting - Seems like the luck of the draw then.


Report •


Ask Question