View Full Version : windows ME and 512k + RAM

02-08-2003, 05:31 PM
i know i've seen it here somewhere, but i've searched for an hour and can't find it. something about needing a patch - i checked at MicroSoft and found nothing there, either (i'm stuck with ME until my next machine). got my first out of memory error, and i can get another 1/4 gig of RDRAM for $80, but if it hoses the OS, i don't see much point. thanks

Alec Trevelyan
02-08-2003, 05:40 PM
um, I'd suggest buying RAM by the MegaByte. 512K of RAM would be verrrrrrry slllllloooooooowwwwwwwww.........;):D

heh, I'd recommend ditching ME and getting an OS that's somewhat functional;)

rabid pitbull
02-08-2003, 05:55 PM
from what i have heard and seen windows me/98 has big problems with memory management. obviosly you have 512M of memory. this would be enough to get by with in w2k , and maybe xp. i really recommend either getting used to this error, or getting w2k or xp. they are much better.

i think the problem is that in me windows doesn't release the memory after an app uses it, so the longer the computer is on the less it thinks is available.:(

Alec Trevelyan
02-08-2003, 06:08 PM
but shouldn't one just be able to use the Task manager to end prosesses that aren't really running anymore? No, wait, that would make sense;)

02-09-2003, 02:53 AM

If you are having problems with windows not "releasing" memory when you close programs there is a handy program you can got for free that will clear your ram for you.

It is called max mem and can be found at :


When I was still using win98 this program became very handy to me. Now I use win2000 and it is great.

02-09-2003, 06:58 AM
actually, i'm only running 256mb now (and it is veeery slow), i want to upgrade TO 512mb. i'm already having to reboot in between programs, but i'm sure i've heard of some other issue specific to win ME that doesn't start 'til you hit 512mb. due to monetary constraints, i can upgrade hardware, or software, but not both, and hardware is the most critical at the moment. appreciate the replies.

02-09-2003, 08:14 AM
I run 576 on XP Pro.. sweet and stable.. no crashes within lightwave. :)

02-10-2003, 08:47 AM
Used to use ME, it's appallingly bad, get rid of it immediately! Running LW with 512 on W2K very happily, sure it's much the same for XP. I reckon you'd be alright with 256 with a reasonable OS. Seriously, ME was a dog (the kind ya put down).;)

02-10-2003, 10:56 AM
I went from Win98 to Win2k/ME dual boot back to Win98/2k dual boot and then to XP, all using 512 meg of ram. I never really had any probs with regards to memory on any OS but ME was very very bad in general, win98 beats it hands down but then for any graphics work 2K or XP are the best. And if u play games too then XP is pritty much the fastest MS OS yet for games(i did some tests:)).


02-11-2003, 11:57 AM
If you are having problems with windows not "releasing" memory when you close programs there is a handy program you can got for free that will clear your ram for you.

Actually, that's not the real problem...whether you have 64MB or 2GB of RAM, Win9x/ME always has the same few crappy ressources to keep track of what's going on, no RAM freeing program or whatever will ever help with that. At a certain point the only thing left you can do is reboot.

Mabe read this:
or this:

Everyone who thinks WinME or 9x works fine hasn't ever used a NT based OS i guess, or he just plays games and shuts down the system. But running a dozend tasks will sooner or later lead to memory error messages, i had plenty of them...am glad those times are over.

Elmar Moelzer
02-11-2003, 12:41 PM
We have been running win95b and Win2k with boot- menue for a while, but have recently switched to Win2k only.
Win 95b was ok, but all other 9x- based versions after it were crap. I still dont know whether Millenium or 98 were worse...
We had all sorts of probs with these. I would strongly recommend using a NT- based Windows with LW, it is just so much better and more stable. Win2k is pretty good IMHO. I just dont like WinXP, mainly because it uses to much resources for childplay...

02-11-2003, 02:58 PM
I agree, I like win2000 a lot. It was only this past summer that I upgraded from win98 and let me tell you it is so much more stable. I honestly dont remeber the last time it crashed or gave me one of those horrible blue screens I grew so accustomed to in win 98.


02-14-2003, 04:16 PM
Hey Lone, did you try CacheMan out already?

02-15-2003, 12:23 PM
Win2k or XP are both very stable when running stuff like lightwave, blue screen errors shouldn't really ever appear, tho in the time iv used them (win2k for ages then winxp) iv managed to crash them both in many different ways with many different errors :) im quite proud when i get a blue screen error cos its not easy to do hehe. But i do tend to mess with things i shouldn't so i only have myself to blame.


02-15-2003, 01:03 PM
Hi Aegis - i downloaded it, and then picked up another 256mb, but got sidetracked (modelling), and blew off installing anything. tonight or tommorrow, if nothing comes up.

02-17-2003, 07:01 AM
I don't think you're going to see much of a performance increase with Win ME and the extra ram. Get yourself a copy of Win 2000 pro.

02-19-2003, 07:31 PM
You'll see a big performance improvement in Lightwave with ME and 512MB if you're processing complex scenes with large models and textures. I saw a big, big difference on Win98 in memory-intensive applications going from 256MB to 640MB.

As for Win98/ME with large amounts of memory, there are two problems:

1. There are some system resources which are allocated out of, I think, a 128k heap. No matter how much RAM you have, once that runs out, applications will start to fall over until enough space has been released or you reboot. If you're just running Lightwave that won't be a problem, but if you're running multiple apps it's not hard to hit that limit after a few hours.

2. You may need to reduce the disk cache size if you install 512MB or more, and the OS will crash and burn somewhere between there and 1GB of RAM. The .ini files changes required to reduce the disk cache size are documented on the Microsoft web site somewhere, but I don't have the URL handy... it's also possible that they fixed that bug in ME.

So ideally, you should switch to XP. But it's not essential if you don't mind tweaking a few system settings.

02-22-2003, 12:28 PM
Well i use 98se with 630 mbs of ram, it runs OK, but my windows is so screwd i just cant back it up yet... but my pc is screwd anyway. My laptop runs XP but i turned off all the funky settings and squezed a second or too of render times for movies. Worthi it
too. Only have 256 mbs of ram. Also what is the limit of Ram for 98, i though it was 512, but im on 630 and it behaves itself (just)


02-23-2003, 12:15 PM
I don't think that Microsoft have ever given an official answer on the RAM limit for Win98, but you'll be lucky to get it running with 1GB or more. It will probably die at some random point between 512MB and 1GB depending on exactly what hardware you have in the machine.