| 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 | ||
| 289531 | 2004-11-08 21:24:00 | In a computer that I looked at yesterday Aida reports it as having 128MB of RAM but I noticed when it counted the RAM upon startup it didn't go any higher than 32MB. The computer takes forever to boot up and open Firefox, IE, OE, Explorer, etc as though it does only have 32MB RAM. I did not have the opportunity to run Memtest or do other testing but which would more likely be correct, Aida or the memory count? |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 289532 | 2004-11-08 21:41:00 | Try this (www.cpuid.com) | Rob99 (151) | ||
| 289533 | 2004-11-08 21:52:00 | My Computer - properties, will give you the correct info - very simple. Bye |
Peter H (220) | ||
| 289534 | 2004-11-08 22:14:00 | Thanks guys. > My Computer - properties, will give you the correct info - very simple. That reported 128MB as well. I am really mystified as to why the memory check stopped at 32MB as it is something I have not come across before. It is puzzling me because I feel that the computer should be running faster than it actually is. My Google skills are pathetic so I can't find any information elsewhere on this issue. |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 289535 | 2004-11-08 22:18:00 | I would update the bios. | POTUS (5276) | ||
| 289536 | 2004-11-08 22:23:00 | I would be asking some questions about the history of the machine, Whether at any stage ram has been added to it,whether it ran better at a prior time etc etc. And i would reset the bios before going to the extreme of flashine it...... |
metla (154) | ||
| 289537 | 2004-11-08 22:42:00 | Susan - What is the OS? If XP, will probally take a while. Bye |
Peter H (220) | ||
| 289538 | 2004-11-08 23:25:00 | It is an ex-office oldish Pentium MMX 200MHz with Windows 2000 that was given to a retired couple by one of their children so that they could keep in contact with their offspring around the globe. They did say that it has always been a bit slow, "because it is old", but since they only use it for emails they are not interested in upgrading it or anything. Although it is probably likely that I will see it again I do not have the liberty to fiddle with it. I just want to satisfy my own curiosity but if it was a fault and something that I could remedy very quickly and easily then I would suggest it to them so that they could spend more of their precious time doing other things instead of waiting forever for things to load. 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. They also don't run NAV like this one does... It is a pity that they only just bought NAV 2004 a couple of months ago otherwise that would be the first thing to get the chop. :| |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 289539 | 2004-11-08 23:44:00 | you may have missed matched ram, speed or chips (double sided and single sided sticks mixed). We all know how fickle Ram can be. I had the oppersite happen to me, the BOIS knew about it but windows (98) would only reconise half of it. 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. |
beama (111) | ||
| 289540 | 2004-11-08 23:55:00 | > you may have missed matched ram, speed or chips > (double sided and single sided sticks mixed). We all > know how fickle Ram can be. If it comes back again check the matching of the sticks, had a 233 the other day refuse to reaed mismatched sticks correctly but would read all sticks correctly indvidually. Good brainteasers. D. |
drb1 (4492) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||