| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 51004 | 2004-11-08 21:24:00 | RAM count | Susan B (19) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 289541 | 2004-11-09 00:06:00 | >Other computers of similar specs with 128MB of RAM fly along faster than this one, but those have Win 98 so that would probably make a difference. Ive found that systems with similar specs run Windows 2000 far better than 98. Beeing based on NT they seem to be far more stable, and 2000 seems to be able to manage the RAM far more effeciently. They'll no doubt be some 98 fanboys who disagree with me, but i wouldnt imediatly assume that Win2k is the problem. |
Pete O'Neil (250) | ||
| 289542 | 2004-11-09 00:10:00 | Sometimes there have been "holes" defined by BIOS so some ISA I/O cards could work. I think this was at 16MB. The BIOS memory routine (INT15) and storage of the "CMOS" tables have had to be radically modified to handle sizes undreamed of in 1981, so Windows and testing routines probably ignore what the BIOS says. ;-) My impression is that W2k should actually run faster than W98. But I don't think it would install in 32MB. My approach would be to unplug/plug the memory (to make sure the contacts are clean), and if that didn't do anything then run a memory tester. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 289543 | 2004-11-09 00:11:00 | > Turned out, that windows had been restricted in how much ram it would reconise, msconfig -> advanced -> max ram 64 meg, once this restruction was removed all was well . That's a new one for me . I have just had another look at the Aida report and there is something weird about it along those lines: [ Memory Modules / DIMM1-2 ] Memory Module Properties: Socket Designation DIMM1-2 Type DIMM Speed 60 ns Installed Size 64 MB Enabled Size 64 MB I didn't realise that there were two sticks in there but according to the above it has, hasn't it? Maybe they are mismatched, as suggested . . . ? |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 289544 | 2004-11-09 00:23:00 | But you would (or I would) expect a problem at the 64MB boundary. On two boxes of mine, one won't work at all with mixed (100MHz and 133MHz) memory, one warns me that I have installed slower memory and carries on. The 32MB "sort of" indicates that one memory address line is not responding. But that should be consistent, and crashes should be frequent. :D |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 289545 | 2004-11-09 00:35:00 | > > My impression is that W2k should actually run faster > than W98 . But I don't think it would install > in 32MB . > Graham, If it is a stable MOBO combination it will install and runon 32 MEG, but if anything is off it will missbehave, badly . Done it many times . D . |
drb1 (4492) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||