Tech Support banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have 1012 RAM pentium 4 2ghz with 180gb raid hd. and windows 98. when i try to defrag or scan disk it says not enoght memory and wont work. then i look and have 78% free. whats the deal>?
 

·
TSF Team, Emeritus
Joined
·
2,697 Posts
EEKS!! Upgrade your Windows to Windows XP! Your system is so powerfull, and your running Windows 98??!! That alone will cause too many problems.. Win98 cant handle the power of your cpu and so forth.... as for your current problem.. someone else will have to take a stab at it!
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Try Control, Alt, Delete and closing everything except Explorer and Systray then try the utilites after that.

If that doesn't work try running them in safe mode.

It seems a sin to have all that nice equipment with Win. 98 on it.

But ya gotta do what ya gotta do....................:winkgrin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,393 Posts
How much free disk space do you have? If a lot, then increase your virtual memory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,691 Posts
Im guessing you build this system yourself ... because there's no way win98 came OEM with a system like that!! I think its just crying for a newer OS , Win2k or XP ...

If your using Win98 that means a Fat32 filesystem ... use a boot disk and do a dos scandisk on it ... as for defrag after the dos scandisk .. see if you can do the defrag in safe mode with nothing running.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,393 Posts
I have heard of scandisk not running if you're out of virtual memory. Have you checked this?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
I would go with Pseudocybers suggestion...check your VM...
Windoze is always hungry for memory, no matter how much memory you have...
you can move VM file Win386.swp to the faster part of the HD. Win98 is supposed to do this for you , but sometimes it doesnt...I mean most of the time it doesnt...

If you choose to manage your own VM, set Maximum and Minimum values to be the same. It should be 2 to 3 time of the amount of RAM on your system....

HTH

write back... :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Could I suggest you to upgrade at least to win2k. Win98 doesn't support more than 512 of RAM. This is a major problem comparatively (is this word really exist in english) to your scan disk problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
Kataclysm- gave you 10 points for using a word mostof us english speaking techies wouldnt use..:winking:


and drivers...hes right W98 doesnt like alot of ram...XP is only go for 2 GB i belive...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
"whats the deal>?"


the "deal" is your hd is too big for win 98.

you will have to disable virtual memory before defrag will work.

Dont forget to re-enable it after drfrag is complete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,393 Posts
Kat... and Doonz - the word is correct (and does exist), but it should be used as follows:

"comparatively speaking"

;)

(Do I get points now? ;))
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
the "deal" is your hd is too big for win 98

Win.98 is FAT32 and supports drives up to 2 terabytes in size.

Microsoft Windows 2000 only supports FAT32 partitions up to a size of 32 GB.

FAT32 uses space more efficiently. FAT32 uses smaller clusters (that is, 4-KB clusters for drives up to 8 GB in size), resulting in 10 to 15 percent more efficient use of disk space relative to large FAT or FAT16 drives.

FAT32 is more robust. FAT32 can relocate the root folder and use the backup copy of the file allocation table instead of the default copy. In addition, the boot record on FAT32 drives is expanded to include a backup copy of critical data structures. Therefore, FAT32 drives are less susceptible to a single point of failure than existing FAT16 drives.

FAT32 is more flexible. The root folder on a FAT32 drive is an ordinary cluster chain, so it can be located anywhere on the drive. The previous limitations on the number of root folder entries no longer exist. In addition, file allocation table mirroring can be disabled, allowing a copy of the file allocation table other than the first one to be active. These features allow for dynamic resizing of FAT32 partitions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,691 Posts
wow ... points should go to speedo for that ... I got board half way through it but it sounded like it was really technical. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
speed dont need them...but when I wake up from that ill give em to him...just to see him get over 2000:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :rolling:
 

·
Citizen of the world
Joined
·
51,041 Posts
Microsoft Windows 2000 only supports FAT32 partitions up to a size of 32 GB.
I have to take exception to this statement. While it's true that W2K won't format a FAT32 partition larger than 32gig, that's where the problem ends. This is apparently an artificial restriction to force people to use NTFS for some reason. W2K has no problem running with FAT32 partitions of any legal size, and I have several FAT32 partitions larger than 32gig running quite happily with W2K. All the other disk tools function fine with the larger FAT32 partitions...
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
What that means is that you can't load W2K off of the CD and get a partition larger than 32gig.

If you fdisk with a Win98 boot disk you can supposedly use up to 2 terabytes if the motherboard will support it. But we ain't got that far yet by yimminy...............:D

Is that what you were implying..........:winkgrin: ....Are you following me....:|
 

·
Citizen of the world
Joined
·
51,041 Posts
My two terabyte disk is working just fine, formatted FAT32 with 2gig clusters. :) Yes, I was referring to a previously formatted disk. What is so strange is that they're fully compatible, for some reason they chose to artificially limit the size of the partitions for FAT32. ??? ???
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top