GPL memory limitation in Windows 98/Me

Does anyone have a fix for the memory problem in Windows Me? I have a P4 running Windows Me with 640 MB of RAM. I get the "Could not initialize replay system" error when I try to go to a track. I've talked to Sierra, and they're aware of the problem: [Sierra support says to me: The "Unable to Initialize Replay System" error generally occurs on systems that have very large quantities of RAM (256MB or more). Adding the following to the CORE.INI file should solve the problem: [ Replay ] replayMemoryOverride = 65535 ] But this is wholly unsatisfactory, as the extra RAM is meant for GPL. I have a dual P3 with 768 MB under Windows 2000, and it works great: GPL can accumulate massive replays in memory. On the Me machine, the replayMemoryOverride can be set to as high as 256000 before it craps out. Every now and then I can get to a track, but it's a fluke. --Jeff

Removing a RAM board maybe help you. With 512MB RAM, GPL works fine without fiddleing. But with 640MB, it doesn't work as you... AMD TB [email hidden] Abit KT7A Micron PC133 CL3 256MB SD-RAM x2 Y.Minami "Jeffrey Rowe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9bg4sn$cao$[email hidden]... > Does anyone have a fix for the memory problem in Windows Me? > > I have a P4 running Windows Me with 640 MB of RAM. I get the "Could not > initialize replay system" error when I try to go to a track. I've talkedto

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Sierra, and they're aware of the problem: > > [Sierra support says to me: > The "Unable to Initialize Replay System" error generally occurs on > systems that > have very large quantities of RAM (256MB or more). Adding the > following to the > CORE.INI file should solve the problem: > > [ Replay ] > replayMemoryOverride = 65535 > ] > > But this is wholly unsatisfactory, as the extra RAM is meant for GPL. I

have

Quoted text (7 lines)

> a dual P3 with 768 MB under Windows 2000, and it works great: GPL can > accumulate > massive replays in memory. On the Me machine, the replayMemoryOverride can > be set to as high as 256000 before it craps out. Every now and then I can > get to a track, but it's a fluke. > > --Jeff

Yoshi Minami <[email hidden]> wrote: : Removing a RAM board maybe help you. : With 512MB RAM, GPL works fine without fiddleing. : But with 640MB, it doesn't work as you... It's the known problem with Windows 98/Me and >512MB memory. The only solution that I know of is to run the "msconfig" (it comes with windows 98SE/ME/etc) and "limit windows memory" to 512MB. This way you do not have to physically remove the memory, but windows will not use it and work properly. Another choice is to leave windows 98/ME/SE behind and move to w2k. Regards, TTT

With that amount of ram you should really be running Win2K and leave doddgy old Win98 16bit computing behind for good. Contrary to belief most games and programs run fine in Win2K. -- Some Call Me Tim

With that amount of ram you should really be running Win2K and leave doddgy old Win98 16bit computing behind for good. Contrary to belief most games and programs run fine in Win2K. -- Some Call Me Tim

As I said in my original post, I have another machine, a dual P3 running w2k with 768 MB. I'm quite aware of the differences between 98/Me and NT/2k. And I have, in fact, resorted to using my development machine for GPL, but I'd rather use my game computer. This is not, by the way, a Windows 98/Me issue: it's a bug in the game. Other games make use of large amounts of memory under 98/Me. The fact that GPL works fine under a proper operating system, and doesn't work fine under a front-end to DOS (Windows 95/98/Me--which it has targeted from the very beginning) means only that Sierra's testing group is not continuing to test even though their software continues to be used. It's the software company's responsibility to make sure its software keeps working as designed. --Jeff "Some Call Me Tim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > With that amount of ram you should really be running Win2K and leavedoddgy

Quoted text (9 lines)

> old Win98 16bit computing behind for good. > > Contrary to belief most games and programs run fine in Win2K. > > > -- > Some Call Me Tim > >

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:10:41 -0400, "Jeffrey Rowe" <[email hidden]> wrote: [snip]>

Quoted text (8 lines)

>This is not, by the way, a Windows 98/Me issue: it's a bug in >the game. Other games make use of large amounts of memory under 98/Me. >The fact that GPL works fine under a >proper operating system, and doesn't work fine under a >front-end to DOS (Windows 95/98/Me--which it has targeted from the very >beginning) means only that Sierra's testing group is not continuing to test >even though their software continues to be used. It's the software company's >responsibility to make sure its software keeps working as designed.

For a game that was released how long ago? For what percentage of users that actually have over 512mb RAM? With all the work Papy still has to do on NASCAR 4? Keep dreaming ;)... Kendt

> For a game that was released how long ago? For what percentage of > users that actually have over 512mb RAM? > With all the work Papy still has to do on NASCAR 4? Am I being naive? How much overlap is there with the Nascar crowd? I downloaded a Nascar 4 demo, and it's for kids. If Sierra won't fix up their software, perhaps they ought to release the source so other developers can. What's the point of holding on to something that's not generating any revenue? "Kendt Eklund" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:10:41 -0400, "Jeffrey Rowe" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > [snip]> > >This is not, by the way, a Windows 98/Me issue: it's a bug in > >the game. Other games make use of large amounts of memory under 98/Me. > >The fact that GPL works fine under a > >proper operating system, and doesn't work fine under a > >front-end to DOS (Windows 95/98/Me--which it has targeted from the very > >beginning) means only that Sierra's testing group is not continuing to

test > >even though their software continues to be used. It's the softwarecompany's

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >responsibility to make sure its software keeps working as designed. > > For a game that was released how long ago? For what percentage of > users that actually have over 512mb RAM? > With all the work Papy still has to do on NASCAR 4? > > Keep dreaming ;)... > > Kendt

Some Call Me Tim wrote: > > With that amount of ram you should really be running Win2K and leave doddgy > old Win98 16bit computing behind for good. > > Contrary to belief most games and programs run fine in Win2K. Hmm, the word "most" in your last sentence is actually the reason why most (there it is again!) gamers stay with Win9x. The price tag is another reason, I guess. -- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

"Jeffrey Rowe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9bipoh$gas$[email hidden]... > ... means only that Sierra's testing group is not continuing to test > even though their software continues to be used. It's the softwarecompany's > responsibility to make sure its software keeps working as designed. > > --Jeff Seriously? There are people out there running Win 3.1 without support from Microsoft. Wny would Papyrus be any different? GPL doesn't really need any additional support from Papyrus.

> Seriously? There are people out there running Win 3.1 without supportfrom > Microsoft. Wny would Papyrus be any different? GPL doesn't really needany > additional support from Papyrus. GPL was released in late 1998. It is two and a half years old. Windows 3.1 was released in April 1992--nine years ago. It is absurd to suggest that running GPL is at all like running a nearly decade old piece of software. Aside from the age difference, there's the fact that Microsoft has continuously updated and upgraded Windows. At the same time, Microsoft has a history of forgetting about the previous version once the new one has been released (whether an OS or word processor or compiler). This is mildly irritating, but not entirely unreasonable and to be expected. Papyrus, on the other hand, has given no indication that it intends to release another version of GPL, and has only released a few beta drivers (some functional, some not) and patches. What, by the way, is your name? _You_ use 3.1, don't you? No doubt out of a fear that 95, 98, Me, NT, and 2k have built-in facilities for broadcasting your identity to the world. --Jeff "Anonymous" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rolE6.7352$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "Jeffrey Rowe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9bipoh$gas$[email hidden]... > > ... means only that Sierra's testing group is not continuing to test > > even though their software continues to be used. It's the software > company's > > responsibility to make sure its software keeps working as designed. > > > > --Jeff > > > > >

"Jeffrey Rowe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9bt21a$jel$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> GPL was released in late 1998. It is two and a half years old. > Windows 3.1 was released in April 1992--nine years ago. It is > absurd to suggest that running GPL is at all like running a > nearly decade old piece of software. > > Aside from the age difference, there's the fact that Microsoft has > continuously updated and upgraded Windows. At the same time, Microsoft has

a

Quoted text (12 lines)

> history of forgetting about the previous version once the new one has been > released (whether an OS or word processor or compiler). This is mildly > irritating, but not entirely unreasonable and to be expected. Papyrus, on > the other hand, has given no indication that it intends to release another > version of GPL, and has only released a few beta drivers (some functional, > some not) and patches. > > What, by the way, is your name? _You_ use 3.1, don't you? No doubt out of > a fear that 95, 98, Me, NT, and 2k have built-in facilities for > broadcasting your identity to the world. > > --Jeff

I guess I'm just confused as to why Papyrus should devote anymore time to this game. As a software developer for the last decade, I've never seen mention of a shelf life for software. Sure Windows 3.1 is 9 years old and GPL is 3 years old. Neither are supported by their developers. When you buy a piece of software the sale is final. Nowhere is it written that there will be future updates or even support. GPL is no longer a supported piece of software, simple as that. As to your original question on how to get GPL to work with your machine and RAM, you were provided with a solution. Remove or deactivate some of your RAM. You're not happy with the solution, but it doesn't mean that Papyrus has failed you. Why do you need to know my name? With or without an identity I expressed a valid thought. If you need to know who I am then you could simply parse the headers that come with the message. I'm simply trying to eliminate some of the spam associated with usenet.

> I guess I'm just confused as to why Papyrus should devote anymore time to > this game. As a software developer for the last decade, I've never seen > mention of a shelf life for software. Sure Windows 3.1 is 9 years old and > GPL is 3 years old. Neither are supported by their developers. When you > buy a piece of software the sale is final. Nowhere is it written thatthere > will be future updates or even support. GPL is no longer a supportedpiece > of software, simple as that. I think it poor business practice not to support a program when (1) the company that created it is still in business, (2) the company hasn't replaced it with a successor, and (3) the software is still being sold (and thus producing a bit of revenue). But every software company has to balance the interests of the business, usually best served by releasing products that will sell the most copies (Nascar), against the company's desire (we hope) to have only the very finest software on the market. Limited engineering resources make it difficult to achieve a balance that would satisfy both potential customers anticipating a new sim and old customers wishing for fixes to a 2 and a half year old sim. I understand what's happening to GPL, and it frustrates and saddens me. And I'm sure there are developers at Sierra (what, by the way, is the distinction between Sierra and Papyrus? Whose game is it?) who are sorry they can't fix, much less enhance, GPL. > Why do you need to know my name? ... I'm simply trying to eliminate someof > the spam associated with usenet. I don't need to know your name. Sorry for the crack at your anonymity. --Jeff "Anonymous" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ybsE6.4878$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "Jeffrey Rowe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9bt21a$jel$[email hidden]... > > GPL was released in late 1998. It is two and a half years old. > > Windows 3.1 was released in April 1992--nine years ago. It is > > absurd to suggest that running GPL is at all like running a > > nearly decade old piece of software. > > > > Aside from the age difference, there's the fact that Microsoft has > > continuously updated and upgraded Windows. At the same time, Microsoft

has > a > > history of forgetting about the previous version once the new one hasbeen > > released (whether an OS or word processor or compiler). This is mildly > > irritating, but not entirely unreasonable and to be expected. Papyrus,on > > the other hand, has given no indication that it intends to releaseanother > > version of GPL, and has only released a few beta drivers (somefunctional, > > some not) and patches. > > > > What, by the way, is your name? _You_ use 3.1, don't you? No doubt outof

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > a fear that 95, 98, Me, NT, and 2k have built-in facilities for > > broadcasting your identity to the world. > > > > --Jeff > > I guess I'm just confused as to why Papyrus should devote anymore time to > this game. As a software developer for the last decade, I've never seen > mention of a shelf life for software. Sure Windows 3.1 is 9 years old and > GPL is 3 years old. Neither are supported by their developers. When you > buy a piece of software the sale is final. Nowhere is it written that

there > will be future updates or even support. GPL is no longer a supportedpiece > of software, simple as that. > > As to your original question on how to get GPL to work with your machineand > RAM, you were provided with a solution. Remove or deactivate some of your > RAM. You're not happy with the solution, but it doesn't mean that Papyrus > has failed you. > > Why do you need to know my name? With or without an identity I expresseda > valid thought. If you need to know who I am then you could simply parsethe > headers that come with the message. I'm simply trying to eliminate someof > the spam associated with usenet. > >"Anonymous" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ybsE6.4878$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "Jeffrey Rowe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9bt21a$jel$[email hidden]... > > GPL was released in late 1998. It is two and a half years old. > > Windows 3.1 was released in April 1992--nine years ago. It is > > absurd to suggest that running GPL is at all like running a > > nearly decade old piece of software. > > > > Aside from the age difference, there's the fact that Microsoft has > > continuously updated and upgraded Windows. At the same time, Microsoft

has > a > > history of forgetting about the previous version once the new one hasbeen > > released (whether an OS or word processor or compiler). This is mildly > > irritating, but not entirely unreasonable and to be expected. Papyrus,on > > the other hand, has given no indication that it intends to releaseanother > > version of GPL, and has only released a few beta drivers (somefunctional, > > some not) and patches. > > > > What, by the way, is your name? _You_ use 3.1, don't you? No doubt outof

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > a fear that 95, 98, Me, NT, and 2k have built-in facilities for > > broadcasting your identity to the world. > > > > --Jeff > > I guess I'm just confused as to why Papyrus should devote anymore time to > this game. As a software developer for the last decade, I've never seen > mention of a shelf life for software. Sure Windows 3.1 is 9 years old and > GPL is 3 years old. Neither are supported by their developers. When you > buy a piece of software the sale is final. Nowhere is it written that

there > will be future updates or even support. GPL is no longer a supportedpiece > of software, simple as that. > > As to your original question on how to get GPL to work with your machineand > RAM, you were provided with a solution. Remove or deactivate some of your > RAM. You're not happy with the solution, but it doesn't mean that Papyrus > has failed you. > > Why do you need to know my name? With or without an identity I expresseda > valid thought. If you need to know who I am then you could simply parsethe > headers that come with the message. I'm simply trying to eliminate someof > the spam associated with usenet. > >

"Jeffrey Rowe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9buve4$qct$[email hidden]... > > I think it poor business practice not to support a program when (1) the > company > that created it is still in business, (2) the company hasn't replaced it > with > a successor, and (3) the software is still being sold (and thus producinga > bit > of revenue). But every software company has to balance the interests ofthe > business, > usually best served by releasing products that will sell the most copies > (Nascar), > against the company's desire (we hope) to have only the very finestsoftware > on the > market. Limited engineering resources make it difficult to achieve abalance

Quoted text (10 lines)

> that would > satisfy both potential customers anticipating a new sim and old customers > wishing > for fixes to a 2 and a half year old sim. I understand what's happening to > GPL, and it > frustrates and saddens me. And I'm sure there are developers at Sierra > (what, by the way, > is the distinction between Sierra and Papyrus? Whose game is it?) who are > sorry they > can't fix, much less enhance, GPL.

I agree with everything you wrote. It would be nice to see active developer/publisher support for GPL but GPL was never much of a money maker. Sierra == Publisher and Papyrus == Developer.

GPL worked fine for me straight out of the box, it still works fine nearly 3 years later. The producer has released several patches which fixed some issues which weren't really supported anyway. You can't really expect a company to keep producing patches for a piece of software that is (as far as computers go) several generations out of date. I require software for work, this is updated every year to work on the latest hardware and with a few minor updates for new regulations (releated to my work). This company charges for every single update, they also charge for technical support. As I see it, if I buy software in 1998, it should work on hardware which is available in 1998, maybe 99 and if I'm lucky the next year. To say that the manufacturer should support it indefinitely and free of charge would make absolutely no business sense. After all, it's not Papyrus's fault that the PC and OS manufacturers have produced equipment that is not compatible with GPL *after* they released it or that an individual's requirements for a PC means that they can't run it. -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> Jeffrey Rowe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9buve4$qct$[email hidden]... > > I guess I'm just confused as to why Papyrus should devote anymore time to > > this game. As a software developer for the last decade, I've never seen > > mention of a shelf life for software. Sure Windows 3.1 is 9 years old and > > GPL is 3 years old. Neither are supported by their developers. When you > > buy a piece of software the sale is final. Nowhere is it written that > there > > will be future updates or even support. GPL is no longer a supported > piece > > of software, simple as that. > > I think it poor business practice not to support a program when (1) the > company > that created it is still in business, (2) the company hasn't replaced it > with > a successor, and (3) the software is still being sold (and thus producing a > bit > of revenue). But every software company has to balance the interests of the > business, > usually best served by releasing products that will sell the most copies > (Nascar), > against the company's desire (we hope) to have only the very finest software > on the > market. Limited engineering resources make it difficult to achieve a balance > that would > satisfy both potential customers anticipating a new sim and old customers > wishing > for fixes to a 2 and a half year old sim. I understand what's happening to > GPL, and it > frustrates and saddens me. And I'm sure there are developers at Sierra > (what, by the way, > is the distinction between Sierra and Papyrus? Whose game is it?) who are > sorry they > can't fix, much less enhance, GPL. >