FarCry on Win98 with 1GB memory

[joe~V~3838]

Hey DrWho, let me know if the extra ram makes a difference.
I have a friend that has amd 2.1ghz cpu,, nvidia 4400 , 512megs ram,
plus win 98se and he gets stuttering and jerking on his system while playing
farcry too. He hasn't tried more ram because of the limitation with win 98 like
you said, but if it works for you it could help him out to.

joe

 

[DrWho]

joe~V~3838 said...

Hey DrWho, let me know if the extra ram makes a difference.
I have a friend that has amd 2.1ghz cpu,, nvidia 4400 , 512megs ram,
plus win 98se and he gets stuttering and jerking on his system while =
playing
farcry too. He hasn't tried more ram because of the limitation with win =
98 like
you said, but if it works for you it could help him out to.

Sure. As soon as my new ram comes in, I'll post my results.

 

[Wookie]

Win 98 can use 1 gig .. you need to change a setting in one of your .ini
files .. do a google search on it. I put a gig of Ram in my second computer
that runs WIN 98SE .... my wife plays the SIMS on it .. and it makes it play
a lot faster. My computer has XP and I put 1 gig in it and it really helped
the performance of Far Cry.


Win 98 doesn't address over 512 megs of ram I do believe....
but does that mean games can't use the extra ram with win 98 ??

 

[Wookie]

Win 98 can use 1 gig .. you need to change a setting in one of your .ini
files .. do a google search on it. I put a gig of Ram in my second computer
that runs WIN 98SE .... my wife plays the SIMS on it .. and it makes it play
a lot faster. My computer has XP and I put 1 gig in it and it really helped
the performance of Far Cry.


Win 98 doesn't address over 512 megs of ram I do believe....
but does that mean games can't use the extra ram with win 98 ??

 

[Mark H]

David Besack said...



Really?! From what I've read, the studdering/glitches/freezing is a
factor of how much system memory is available. In general, low frame
rates are from the video card stuggling, but the screen studders are
generally caused by doing disk accesses during game play. THAT problem
should be mitigated by more memory.

Right problem - the first answer is really correct{disk accesses}, the
second answer {more memory} is incomplete. That was the thinking when
most systems had low system memory from 64m-128meg. I've got a gig of
memory and I still get some stuttering on a raid zero with a
radeon9500np modded to a 9700np. At first I thought it was the network
causing the problem - so I left it go for awhile. Then, I got panicky
with no real back-up for my raid, even tho it never crashed, so I bought
a backup drive and controller - stuck my programs and images on one
partition and stuck the page system on the second. Well that eliminated
all the stuttering. {at least for me}

 

[DrWho]

Mark H said...

Right problem - the first answer is really correct{disk accesses}, the
second answer {more memory} is incomplete. That was the thinking when
most systems had low system memory from 64m-128meg. I've got a gig of
memory and I still get some stuttering on a raid zero with a
radeon9500np modded to a 9700np. At first I thought it was the network
causing the problem - so I left it go for awhile. Then, I got panicky
with no real back-up for my raid, even tho it never crashed, so I bought
a backup drive and controller - stuck my programs and images on one
partition and stuck the page system on the second. Well that eliminated
all the stuttering. {at least for me}

I suspect it may be more likely that the real solution to your problem
was doing a defrag of your drive?? When you re-worked your drive setup,
both partitions got defragged in the process.

BTW, I am also running two 80GB 7200rpm drives in a RAID 0 - very fast.


Still waiting for my additional ram to come in.... will report my
results when I get it.

 

[- HAL9000]

That kinda brings up the question as to whether shutting off your swap
file while playing the game would fix things...

Forrest

Motherboard Help By HAL web site:
http://home.comcast.net/~hal-9000/

 

[First of One]

Some games (like Quake II) needs a swapfile to work. You will have to set up
a RAMdrive and put the swapfile on it.

 

[Mark H]

Defragged was tried and swap was already off, also tried modin the UT
ini files which didnt help.

 

[andy]

i thought win98 was incompatible with 1 gig of memory without altering
vcache
have u altered ur vcahce settings ?

 

[DrWho]

andy said...

i thought win98 was incompatible with 1 gig of memory without altering
vcache have u altered ur vcahce settings ?

No sure if you're talking to Mark, or me. Mark did not specify his OS.
As for me, yes I have limited my vcache in preparation for more RAM -
which I am STILL waiting for......

 

[- HAL9000]

Thanks for the follow up.

Forrest

Motherboard Help By HAL web site:
http://home.comcast.net/~hal-9000/

Defragged was tried and swap was already off, also tried modin the UT
ini files which didnt help.

< snip >

 

[DrWho]

DrWho said...

joe~V~3838 said...

I am now running with 1GB of on my archaic Windows 98SE OS. The extra
512MB has definitely helped the stuttering problem. There are still
occasional stutters when the game is forced to do a disk access, but that
occurs less frequently.

I guess I'm a little disappointed that I still get stutters, but it may
simply be that I am so attuned to them after all this discussion, and
that FarCry stutters no more than any other game I've played. At this
point, I'm not sure if the extra RAM was worth the money. I guess I need
to play more to really decide.

BTW, cranking my 9700 non-pro (default speeds GPU:275/Mem:270) up to
GPU:375/Mem:303 has made one HELUVA difference in frame rates!

 

[joe~V~3838]

Hey DrWho, thanks for the update !
Well, did you do anything else in the bios or ini files?
or did you just add the ram.....
that's a shame, to have such a good system and it still has stuttering.
I guess you now have to try and put a 3.0ghz cpu in ! heh heh
I'll tell my friend that it helped some, but may not be worth the
money....

joe

 

[DrWho]

joe~V~3838 said...

Hey DrWho, thanks for the update !
Well, did you do anything else in the bios or ini files?
or did you just add the ram.....

I modified the system.ini file to limit the vcache to 128MB. I've
learned that Win98SE will die a slow painful death if have over 512MB,
and vcache isn't limited.

that's a shame, to have such a good system and it still has stuttering.
I guess you now have to try and put a 3.0ghz cpu in ! heh heh
I'll tell my friend that it helped some, but may not be worth the
money....

I suppose it depends on how much you spend. I bought very expensive RAM
(Corsair XMS PC3200, CAS 2.0) because that's what my first 512MB is. You
can certainly get low-end memory for much less than I spent.

 

[joe~V~3838]

ok, thanks for the info on the vcashe in system.ini........
and he has just generic ram , so should be able to get
a 512 stick for $60-70.......
thanks for you help.....

joe

 

[DrWho]

....just a quick update if anyone's still interested.

Even after modifying the system.ini file to limit the vcache to 128MB, I
continued to get the same type of errors that are well known for Win98
with over 512MB memory. So, I gave up, and removed the new stick of 512.
I have been playing FarCry with only 512MB since then.

Tonight, I finally realized that there are TWO recommendations for
working around the Win98/512MB problem. Limiting the cache is only one
of them. The other suggestion is to run msconfig->advanced, and force
windows to only use 512MB (even tho there is more available). This
finally solve my problems with running 1GB on Windows 98. Of course,
now windows isn't taking advantage of the extra RAM. But! It seems that
the applications are NOT limited by what windows does - they actually CAN
use all available ram.

So, after playing a lot of FarCry with only 512MB, and then playing it
with 1GB (even tho windows still thinks there's only 512), I DO now
notice a VERY significant improvement in FarCry. I had said before that
the difference wasn't that great. I was wrong. Tonight, after putting
the new stick back in (and telling windows to ignore it), I am a
believer. If you are playing FarCry, 1GB is a MUST. It is SO much
better than having only 512.



DrWho

Abit KX7-333R
XP2700/333
1GB Corsair XMS PC3200 CAS 2.0
ATI 9700non-pro (CPU:375 Mem:303)
Two 80GB WD 7200/8MB in a RAID0

 

[Pluvious]

...just a quick update if anyone's still interested.

Even after modifying the system.ini file to limit the vcache to 128MB, I
continued to get the same type of errors that are well known for Win98
with over 512MB memory. So, I gave up, and removed the new stick of 512.
I have been playing FarCry with only 512MB since then.

Tonight, I finally realized that there are TWO recommendations for
working around the Win98/512MB problem. Limiting the cache is only one
of them. The other suggestion is to run msconfig->advanced, and force
windows to only use 512MB (even tho there is more available). This
finally solve my problems with running 1GB on Windows 98. Of course,
now windows isn't taking advantage of the extra RAM. But! It seems that
the applications are NOT limited by what windows does - they actually CAN
use all available ram.

So, after playing a lot of FarCry with only 512MB, and then playing it
with 1GB (even tho windows still thinks there's only 512), I DO now
notice a VERY significant improvement in FarCry. I had said before that
the difference wasn't that great. I was wrong. Tonight, after putting
the new stick back in (and telling windows to ignore it), I am a
believer. If you are playing FarCry, 1GB is a MUST. It is SO much
better than having only 512.



DrWho

Abit KX7-333R
XP2700/333
1GB Corsair XMS PC3200 CAS 2.0
ATI 9700non-pro (CPU:375 Mem:303)
Two 80GB WD 7200/8MB in a RAID0

Now that you've discovered 1 gig goodness, it's time to switch to XP
and dump 98.

Pluvious

 

[joe~V~3838]

Hey Dr. Who , thanks for the follow up......
I guess my friend might give this a try after all....


joe

 

[DrWho]

Pluvious said...

Now that you've discovered 1 gig goodness, it's time to switch to XP
and dump 98.

If I could just install XP, I'd do it. I have over 100 applications
installed. It would take me a month to get my machine back to its
current level of functionality. I'm not willing to go thru that pain.

The next time I build a machine from scratch, I'll load XP. But this
hardware is more than sufficient for now. This machine will stay with
98SE. I have Bill Gates and his wonderful invention called, The
Registry, to thank for this. Applications should NOT need to be
reinstalled just because the OS has been. That damnable registry is the
bain of computer users today....




--
DrWho

Abit KX7-333R
XP2700/333
1GB Corsair XMS PC3200 CAS 2.0
ATI 9700non-pro (CPU:375 Mem:303)
Two 80GB WD 7200/8MB in a RAID0