I recently upgraded my RAM from 128MB to 384MB but Windows
is still showing only 128MB. On the boot-up screen, also
at RAM count up all 384MB are shown.

I let DocMemory run overnight and no problems.

Windows doesn't show all RAM under System Properties or
Task Manager.

BTW, all RAM are from the same manufacturer and all three
are identical.

How can I get W2k to show all the RAM present?

Thanks for the help if anyone knows anything.

Brian

Brian - even apparently identical RAM sticks from the same manufacturer
can vary slightly (but enough) in characteristics like timing to disturb
W2k, which is much more demanding of perfection than BIOS. Particularly
if they are from different fabrication runs.

Try all 3 sticks one at a time. Then try them in pairs. Do this in
different RAM slots as well. If W2k is satisfied by the above, then try
all 3 at once, in different slot combinations. You may discover that one
or two are a bit faster or slower than the other(s).

RAM response is a matter of nanoseconds. Bits travel about an inch per
nanosecond. The RAM slots vary in distance from stick to processor,
hence which slot for which stick might make a difference that affects
W2k's decision that a stick(s) is good or bad.

Brian wrote:

> I recently upgraded my RAM from 128MB to 384MB but Windows
> is still showing only 128MB. On the boot-up screen, also
> at RAM count up all 384MB are shown.
>
> I let DocMemory run overnight and no problems.
>
> Windows doesn't show all RAM under System Properties or
> Task Manager.
>
> BTW, all RAM are from the same manufacturer and all three
> are identical.
>
> How can I get W2k to show all the RAM present?
>
> Thanks for the help if anyone knows anything.
>
> Brian
>
>

Well thanks for the help anyway. I tried all 3
individually in different slots and then in pairs(about 16
different combinations). No Luck.

What is really funny is that the BIOS will show 128+ for
each stick but the W2K System Properties or Task Manager
shows still the same amount everytime 126512 no matter if
the chip has more or not. I thought maybe this number
should show at least some variance.

Thanks anyway.

Brian
>-----Original Message-----
>Brian - even apparently identical RAM sticks from the
same manufacturer
>can vary slightly (but enough) in characteristics like
timing to disturb
>W2k, which is much more demanding of perfection than
BIOS. Particularly
>if they are from different fabrication runs.
>
>Try all 3 sticks one at a time. Then try them in pairs.
Do this in
>different RAM slots as well. If W2k is satisfied by the
above, then try
>all 3 at once, in different slot combinations. You may
discover that one
>or two are a bit faster or slower than the other(s).
>
>RAM response is a matter of nanoseconds. Bits travel
about an inch per
>nanosecond. The RAM slots vary in distance from stick to
processor,
>hence which slot for which stick might make a difference
that affects
>W2k's decision that a stick(s) is good or bad.
>
>Brian wrote:
>
>> I recently upgraded my RAM from 128MB to 384MB but
Windows
>> is still showing only 128MB. On the boot-up screen,
also
>> at RAM count up all 384MB are shown.
>>
>> I let DocMemory run overnight and no problems.
>>
>> Windows doesn't show all RAM under System Properties or
>> Task Manager.
>>
>> BTW, all RAM are from the same manufacturer and all
three
>> are identical.
>>
>> How can I get W2k to show all the RAM present?
>>
>> Thanks for the help if anyone knows anything.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>
>.
>

Brian - too bad no clues from that effort; I guess you're saying all RAM
sticks individually and in combinations are seen by W2k singly and in
pairs but not in triplets, regardless of where placed.

I'm at a loss; can only suggest trying the RAM sticks in another
machine, or perhaps slowing down the system clocking on that machine
since it really may be some sort of timing problem. Could be a
complicated artifact of mainboard design. But that's headscratching
speculation. If for example W2k probes RAM to make sure its accesses are
all within a very small window of response time, and declares a stick
unreliable because its response falls outside that window, and somehow
on the board one of 3 or 4 sticks will always fall outside that window...

You're CERTAIN, from the board manual, that 3x128MB sticks is an OK
configuration? (If you don't have the manual, check the board mfr's
website.)

As far as the difference in reported RAM sizes goes, that is the result
of different methods of counting. Merely an ambiguity. Some people
consider 1K to be 1000 bytes, others 1024 bytes. Scale that up to MB and
GB and it's quite a difference. People write software that way too. And
marketeers love it; what's on the HDD box blurb usually is usually based
on the 1000 number, which is [technically] not correct but is a bigger #.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Well thanks for the help anyway. I tried all 3
> individually in different slots and then in pairs(about 16
> different combinations). No Luck.
>
> What is really funny is that the BIOS will show 128+ for
> each stick but the W2K System Properties or Task Manager
> shows still the same amount everytime 126512 no matter if
> the chip has more or not. I thought maybe this number
> should show at least some variance.
>
> Thanks anyway.
>
> Brian
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Brian - even apparently identical RAM sticks from the
>
> same manufacturer
>
>>can vary slightly (but enough) in characteristics like
>
> timing to disturb
>
>>W2k, which is much more demanding of perfection than
>
> BIOS. Particularly
>
>>if they are from different fabrication runs.
>>
>>Try all 3 sticks one at a time. Then try them in pairs.
>
> Do this in
>
>>different RAM slots as well. If W2k is satisfied by the
>
> above, then try
>
>>all 3 at once, in different slot combinations. You may
>
> discover that one
>
>>or two are a bit faster or slower than the other(s).
>>
>>RAM response is a matter of nanoseconds. Bits travel
>
> about an inch per
>
>>nanosecond. The RAM slots vary in distance from stick to
>
> processor,
>
>>hence which slot for which stick might make a difference
>
> that affects
>
>>W2k's decision that a stick(s) is good or bad.
>>
>>Brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I recently upgraded my RAM from 128MB to 384MB but
>
> Windows
>
>>>is still showing only 128MB. On the boot-up screen,
>
> also
>
>>>at RAM count up all 384MB are shown.
>>>
>>>I let DocMemory run overnight and no problems.
>>>
>>>Windows doesn't show all RAM under System Properties or
>>>Task Manager.
>>>
>>>BTW, all RAM are from the same manufacturer and all
>
> three
>
>>>are identical.
>>>
>>>How can I get W2k to show all the RAM present?
>>>
>>>Thanks for the help if anyone knows anything.
>>>
>>>Brian
>>>
>>>
>>
>>.
>>

Brian - there's a chance the MAXMEM boot.ini switch might
give you a clue - start at this location:

<http://support.microsoft.com/?id=833722>

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Well thanks for the help anyway. I tried all 3
> individually in different slots and then in pairs(about 16
> different combinations). No Luck.
>
> What is really funny is that the BIOS will show 128+ for
> each stick but the W2K System Properties or Task Manager
> shows still the same amount everytime 126512 no matter if
> the chip has more or not. I thought maybe this number
> should show at least some variance.
>
> Thanks anyway.
>
> Brian
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Brian - even apparently identical RAM sticks from the
>
> same manufacturer
>
>>can vary slightly (but enough) in characteristics like
>
> timing to disturb
>
>>W2k, which is much more demanding of perfection than
>
> BIOS. Particularly
>
>>if they are from different fabrication runs.
>>
>>Try all 3 sticks one at a time. Then try them in pairs.
>
> Do this in
>
>>different RAM slots as well. If W2k is satisfied by the
>
> above, then try
>
>>all 3 at once, in different slot combinations. You may
>
> discover that one
>
>>or two are a bit faster or slower than the other(s).
>>
>>RAM response is a matter of nanoseconds. Bits travel
>
> about an inch per
>
>>nanosecond. The RAM slots vary in distance from stick to
>
> processor,
>
>>hence which slot for which stick might make a difference
>
> that affects
>
>>W2k's decision that a stick(s) is good or bad.
>>
>>Brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I recently upgraded my RAM from 128MB to 384MB but
>
> Windows
>
>>>is still showing only 128MB. On the boot-up screen,
>
> also
>
>>>at RAM count up all 384MB are shown.
>>>
>>>I let DocMemory run overnight and no problems.
>>>
>>>Windows doesn't show all RAM under System Properties or
>>>Task Manager.
>>>
>>>BTW, all RAM are from the same manufacturer and all
>
> three
>
>>>are identical.
>>>
>>>How can I get W2k to show all the RAM present?
>>>
>>>Thanks for the help if anyone knows anything.
>>>
>>>Brian
>>>
>>>
>>
>>.
>>

Dan: Thanks for the help.

Actually, it worked with each stick individually but not
in pairs or triplets.

I can't find my boot.ini file so maybe that is part of the
problem. First I'll try to replace it and see how that
goes and if that doesn't work then I'll try clocking it
down a bit.

BTW, I looked in my mother board's manual before I decided
to do the upgrade. So, the RAM will work; it just seems
to be a windows problem.


>-----Original Message-----
>Brian - too bad no clues from that effort; I guess you're
saying all RAM
>sticks individually and in combinations are seen by W2k
singly and in
>pairs but not in triplets, regardless of where placed.
>
>I'm at a loss; can only suggest trying the RAM sticks in
another
>machine, or perhaps slowing down the system clocking on
that machine
>since it really may be some sort of timing problem. Could
be a
>complicated artifact of mainboard design. But that's
headscratching
>speculation. If for example W2k probes RAM to make sure
its accesses are
>all within a very small window of response time, and
declares a stick
>unreliable because its response falls outside that
window, and somehow
>on the board one of 3 or 4 sticks will always fall
outside that window...
>
>You're CERTAIN, from the board manual, that 3x128MB
sticks is an OK
>configuration? (If you don't have the manual, check the
board mfr's
>website.)
>
>As far as the difference in reported RAM sizes goes, that
is the result
>of different methods of counting. Merely an ambiguity.
Some people
>consider 1K to be 1000 bytes, others 1024 bytes. Scale
that up to MB and
>GB and it's quite a difference. People write software
that way too. And
>marketeers love it; what's on the HDD box blurb usually
is usually based
>on the 1000 number, which is [technically] not correct
but is a bigger #.
>
>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> Well thanks for the help anyway. I tried all 3
>> individually in different slots and then in pairs(about
16
>> different combinations). No Luck.
>>
>> What is really funny is that the BIOS will show 128+
for
>> each stick but the W2K System Properties or Task
Manager
>> shows still the same amount everytime 126512 no matter
if
>> the chip has more or not. I thought maybe this number
>> should show at least some variance.
>>
>> Thanks anyway.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>Brian - even apparently identical RAM sticks from the
>>
>> same manufacturer
>>
>>>can vary slightly (but enough) in characteristics like
>>
>> timing to disturb
>>
>>>W2k, which is much more demanding of perfection than
>>
>> BIOS. Particularly
>>
>>>if they are from different fabrication runs.
>>>
>>>Try all 3 sticks one at a time. Then try them in pairs.
>>
>> Do this in
>>
>>>different RAM slots as well. If W2k is satisfied by the
>>
>> above, then try
>>
>>>all 3 at once, in different slot combinations. You may
>>
>> discover that one
>>
>>>or two are a bit faster or slower than the other(s).
>>>
>>>RAM response is a matter of nanoseconds. Bits travel
>>
>> about an inch per
>>
>>>nanosecond. The RAM slots vary in distance from stick
to
>>
>> processor,
>>
>>>hence which slot for which stick might make a
difference
>>
>> that affects
>>
>>>W2k's decision that a stick(s) is good or bad.
>>>
>>>Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I recently upgraded my RAM from 128MB to 384MB but
>>
>> Windows
>>
>>>>is still showing only 128MB. On the boot-up screen,
>>
>> also
>>
>>>>at RAM count up all 384MB are shown.
>>>>
>>>>I let DocMemory run overnight and no problems.
>>>>
>>>>Windows doesn't show all RAM under System Properties
or
>>>>Task Manager.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, all RAM are from the same manufacturer and all
>>
>> three
>>
>>>>are identical.
>>>>
>>>>How can I get W2k to show all the RAM present?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the help if anyone knows anything.
>>>>
>>>>Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>
>.
>

Brian - boot.ini is usually a hidden/system/readonly file on the primary
master's first partition. Small simple text file. Enable Explorer to
show all files to see it. Remove those attributes to edit with edit,
notepad, any text editor.

No pairs worked regardless of slots? No triplets, same story?

I'd talk to the mainboard maker's tech support desk; there may be some
simple setting adjustment needed, or maybe a board problem, if the
manual says those RAM configs are OK. Board jumper, something like that.

Manuals aren't always clear and unamiguous. Too often they're written by
the people who give you elevator instructions that can kill you in a
foreign land. Or written for a number of related boards, with
significant differences not adequately discussed. Tech support may have
seen this problem umpteen times before, they're the cleanup crew. :-)

Hope this helps...

Now that I think of it, I suppose there's a chance that the board
controller drivers you're using are not designed for W2k. Check that
too, at the website and/or with tech support. Especially if you upgraded
your system from an older OS to W2k (by any method) without upgrading
the mainboard driver set as well. The chipset in charge of RAM transfers
across the bus may need a W2k driver. (A shot in the dark.)

Brian wrote:

> Dan: Thanks for the help.
>
> Actually, it worked with each stick individually but not
> in pairs or triplets.
>
> I can't find my boot.ini file so maybe that is part of the
> problem. First I'll try to replace it and see how that
> goes and if that doesn't work then I'll try clocking it
> down a bit.
>
> BTW, I looked in my mother board's manual before I decided
> to do the upgrade. So, the RAM will work; it just seems
> to be a windows problem.
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Brian - too bad no clues from that effort; I guess you're
>
> saying all RAM
>
>>sticks individually and in combinations are seen by W2k
>
> singly and in
>
>>pairs but not in triplets, regardless of where placed.
>>
>>I'm at a loss; can only suggest trying the RAM sticks in
>
> another
>
>>machine, or perhaps slowing down the system clocking on
>
> that machine
>
>>since it really may be some sort of timing problem. Could
>
> be a
>
>>complicated artifact of mainboard design. But that's
>
> headscratching
>
>>speculation. If for example W2k probes RAM to make sure
>
> its accesses are
>
>>all within a very small window of response time, and
>
> declares a stick
>
>>unreliable because its response falls outside that
>
> window, and somehow
>
>>on the board one of 3 or 4 sticks will always fall
>
> outside that window...
>
>>You're CERTAIN, from the board manual, that 3x128MB
>
> sticks is an OK
>
>>configuration? (If you don't have the manual, check the
>
> board mfr's
>
>>website.)
>>
>>As far as the difference in reported RAM sizes goes, that
>
> is the result
>
>>of different methods of counting. Merely an ambiguity.
>
> Some people
>
>>consider 1K to be 1000 bytes, others 1024 bytes. Scale
>
> that up to MB and
>
>>GB and it's quite a difference. People write software
>
> that way too. And
>
>>marketeers love it; what's on the HDD box blurb usually
>
> is usually based
>
>>on the 1000 number, which is [technically] not correct
>
> but is a bigger #.
>
>>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>>>Well thanks for the help anyway. I tried all 3
>>>individually in different slots and then in pairs(about
>
> 16
>
>>>different combinations). No Luck.
>>>
>>>What is really funny is that the BIOS will show 128+
>
> for
>
>>>each stick but the W2K System Properties or Task
>
> Manager
>
>>>shows still the same amount everytime 126512 no matter
>
> if
>
>>>the chip has more or not. I thought maybe this number
>>>should show at least some variance.
>>>
>>>Thanks anyway.
>>>
>>>Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>Brian - even apparently identical RAM sticks from the
>>>
>>>same manufacturer
>>>
>>>
>>>>can vary slightly (but enough) in characteristics like
>>>
>>>timing to disturb
>>>
>>>
>>>>W2k, which is much more demanding of perfection than
>>>
>>>BIOS. Particularly
>>>
>>>
>>>>if they are from different fabrication runs.
>>>>
>>>>Try all 3 sticks one at a time. Then try them in pairs.
>>>
>>>Do this in
>>>
>>>
>>>>different RAM slots as well. If W2k is satisfied by the
>>>
>>>above, then try
>>>
>>>
>>>>all 3 at once, in different slot combinations. You may
>>>
>>>discover that one
>>>
>>>
>>>>or two are a bit faster or slower than the other(s).
>>>>
>>>>RAM response is a matter of nanoseconds. Bits travel
>>>
>>>about an inch per
>>>
>>>
>>>>nanosecond. The RAM slots vary in distance from stick
>
> to
>
>>>processor,
>>>
>>>
>>>>hence which slot for which stick might make a
>
> difference
>
>>>that affects
>>>
>>>
>>>>W2k's decision that a stick(s) is good or bad.
>>>>
>>>>Brian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I recently upgraded my RAM from 128MB to 384MB but
>>>
>>>Windows
>>>
>>>
>>>>>is still showing only 128MB. On the boot-up screen,
>>>
>>>also
>>>
>>>
>>>>>at RAM count up all 384MB are shown.
>>>>>
>>>>>I let DocMemory run overnight and no problems.
>>>>>
>>>>>Windows doesn't show all RAM under System Properties
>
> or
>
>>>>>Task Manager.
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW, all RAM are from the same manufacturer and all
>>>
>>>three
>>>
>>>
>>>>>are identical.
>>>>>
>>>>>How can I get W2k to show all the RAM present?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the help if anyone knows anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>Brian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>.
>>>>
>>
>>.
>>

Dan- I'll try searching again for the boot.ini file and
hope that helps.

I will definitely remember that about the elevators the
next I'm in one out of the country. Thx

That about the board drivers may be it becuase I did
upgrade this computer from NT4 to w2k about a year ago and
don't think a change any board drivers. Good point.

I'll try by ASUS.

Once again thanks for the help.
>-----Original Message-----
>Brian - boot.ini is usually a hidden/system/readonly file
on the primary
>master's first partition. Small simple text file. Enable
Explorer to
>show all files to see it. Remove those attributes to edit
with edit,
>notepad, any text editor.
>
>No pairs worked regardless of slots? No triplets, same
story?
>
>I'd talk to the mainboard maker's tech support desk;
there may be some
>simple setting adjustment needed, or maybe a board
problem, if the
>manual says those RAM configs are OK. Board jumper,
something like that.
>
>Manuals aren't always clear and unamiguous. Too often
they're written by
>the people who give you elevator instructions that can
kill you in a
>foreign land. Or written for a number of related boards,
with
>significant differences not adequately discussed. Tech
support may have
>seen this problem umpteen times before, they're the
cleanup crew. :-)
>
>Hope this helps...
>
>Now that I think of it, I suppose there's a chance that
the board
>controller drivers you're using are not designed for W2k.
Check that
>too, at the website and/or with tech support. Especially
if you upgraded
>your system from an older OS to W2k (by any method)
without upgrading
>the mainboard driver set as well. The chipset in charge
of RAM transfers
>across the bus may need a W2k driver. (A shot in the
dark.)
>
>Brian wrote:
>
>> Dan: Thanks for the help.
>>
>> Actually, it worked with each stick individually but
not
>> in pairs or triplets.
>>
>> I can't find my boot.ini file so maybe that is part of
the
>> problem. First I'll try to replace it and see how that
>> goes and if that doesn't work then I'll try clocking it
>> down a bit.
>>
>> BTW, I looked in my mother board's manual before I
decided
>> to do the upgrade. So, the RAM will work; it just
seems
>> to be a windows problem.
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>Brian - too bad no clues from that effort; I guess
you're
>>
>> saying all RAM
>>
>>>sticks individually and in combinations are seen by W2k
>>
>> singly and in
>>
>>>pairs but not in triplets, regardless of where placed.
>>>
>>>I'm at a loss; can only suggest trying the RAM sticks
in
>>
>> another
>>
>>>machine, or perhaps slowing down the system clocking on
>>
>> that machine
>>
>>>since it really may be some sort of timing problem.
Could
>>
>> be a
>>
>>>complicated artifact of mainboard design. But that's
>>
>> headscratching
>>
>>>speculation. If for example W2k probes RAM to make sure
>>
>> its accesses are
>>
>>>all within a very small window of response time, and
>>
>> declares a stick
>>
>>>unreliable because its response falls outside that
>>
>> window, and somehow
>>
>>>on the board one of 3 or 4 sticks will always fall
>>
>> outside that window...
>>
>>>You're CERTAIN, from the board manual, that 3x128MB
>>
>> sticks is an OK
>>
>>>configuration? (If you don't have the manual, check the
>>
>> board mfr's
>>
>>>website.)
>>>
>>>As far as the difference in reported RAM sizes goes,
that
>>
>> is the result
>>
>>>of different methods of counting. Merely an ambiguity.
>>
>> Some people
>>
>>>consider 1K to be 1000 bytes, others 1024 bytes. Scale
>>
>> that up to MB and
>>
>>>GB and it's quite a difference. People write software
>>
>> that way too. And
>>
>>>marketeers love it; what's on the HDD box blurb usually
>>
>> is usually based
>>
>>>on the 1000 number, which is [technically] not correct
>>
>> but is a bigger #.
>>
>>>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well thanks for the help anyway. I tried all 3
>>>>individually in different slots and then in pairs
(about
>>
>> 16
>>
>>>>different combinations). No Luck.
>>>>
>>>>What is really funny is that the BIOS will show 128+
>>
>> for
>>
>>>>each stick but the W2K System Properties or Task
>>
>> Manager
>>
>>>>shows still the same amount everytime 126512 no matter
>>
>> if
>>
>>>>the chip has more or not. I thought maybe this number
>>>>should show at least some variance.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks anyway.
>>>>
>>>>Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>Brian - even apparently identical RAM sticks from the
>>>>
>>>>same manufacturer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>can vary slightly (but enough) in characteristics
like
>>>>
>>>>timing to disturb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>W2k, which is much more demanding of perfection than
>>>>
>>>>BIOS. Particularly
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>if they are from different fabrication runs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Try all 3 sticks one at a time. Then try them in
pairs.
>>>>
>>>>Do this in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>different RAM slots as well. If W2k is satisfied by
the
>>>>
>>>>above, then try
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>all 3 at once, in different slot combinations. You
may
>>>>
>>>>discover that one
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or two are a bit faster or slower than the other(s).
>>>>>
>>>>>RAM response is a matter of nanoseconds. Bits travel
>>>>
>>>>about an inch per
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>nanosecond. The RAM slots vary in distance from stick
>>
>> to
>>
>>>>processor,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>hence which slot for which stick might make a
>>
>> difference
>>
>>>>that affects
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>W2k's decision that a stick(s) is good or bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>Brian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I recently upgraded my RAM from 128MB to 384MB but
>>>>
>>>>Windows
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>is still showing only 128MB. On the boot-up screen,
>>>>
>>>>also
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>at RAM count up all 384MB are shown.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I let DocMemory run overnight and no problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Windows doesn't show all RAM under System Properties
>>
>> or
>>
>>>>>>Task Manager.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW, all RAM are from the same manufacturer and all
>>>>
>>>>three
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>are identical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How can I get W2k to show all the RAM present?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for the help if anyone knows anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Brian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>
>.
>

It's a very safe bet that NT4 drivers won't work with W2k (NT5).

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Dan- I'll try searching again for the boot.ini file and
> hope that helps.
>
> I will definitely remember that about the elevators the
> next I'm in one out of the country. Thx
>
> That about the board drivers may be it becuase I did
> upgrade this computer from NT4 to w2k about a year ago and
> don't think a change any board drivers. Good point.
>
> I'll try by ASUS.
>
> Once again thanks for the help.
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Brian - boot.ini is usually a hidden/system/readonly file
>
> on the primary
>
>>master's first partition. Small simple text file. Enable
>
> Explorer to
>
>>show all files to see it. Remove those attributes to edit
>
> with edit,
>
>>notepad, any text editor.
>>
>>No pairs worked regardless of slots? No triplets, same
>
> story?
>
>>I'd talk to the mainboard maker's tech support desk;
>
> there may be some
>
>>simple setting adjustment needed, or maybe a board
>
> problem, if the
>
>>manual says those RAM configs are OK. Board jumper,
>
> something like that.
>
>>Manuals aren't always clear and unamiguous. Too often
>
> they're written by
>
>>the people who give you elevator instructions that can
>
> kill you in a
>
>>foreign land. Or written for a number of related boards,
>
> with
>
>>significant differences not adequately discussed. Tech
>
> support may have
>
>>seen this problem umpteen times before, they're the
>
> cleanup crew. :-)
>
>>Hope this helps...
>>
>>Now that I think of it, I suppose there's a chance that
>
> the board
>
>>controller drivers you're using are not designed for W2k.
>
> Check that
>
>>too, at the website and/or with tech support. Especially
>
> if you upgraded
>
>>your system from an older OS to W2k (by any method)
>
> without upgrading
>
>>the mainboard driver set as well. The chipset in charge
>
> of RAM transfers
>
>>across the bus may need a W2k driver. (A shot in the
>
> dark.)
>
>>Brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dan: Thanks for the help.
>>>
>>>Actually, it worked with each stick individually but
>
> not
>
>>>in pairs or triplets.
>>>
>>>I can't find my boot.ini file so maybe that is part of
>
> the
>
>>>problem. First I'll try to replace it and see how that
>>>goes and if that doesn't work then I'll try clocking it
>>>down a bit.
>>>
>>>BTW, I looked in my mother board's manual before I
>
> decided
>
>>>to do the upgrade. So, the RAM will work; it just
>
> seems
>
>>>to be a windows problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>Brian - too bad no clues from that effort; I guess
>
> you're
>
>>>saying all RAM
>>>
>>>
>>>>sticks individually and in combinations are seen by W2k
>>>
>>>singly and in
>>>
>>>
>>>>pairs but not in triplets, regardless of where placed.
>>>>
>>>>I'm at a loss; can only suggest trying the RAM sticks
>
> in
>
>>>another
>>>
>>>
>>>>machine, or perhaps slowing down the system clocking on
>>>
>>>that machine
>>>
>>>
>>>>since it really may be some sort of timing problem.
>
> Could
>
>>>be a
>>>
>>>
>>>>complicated artifact of mainboard design. But that's
>>>
>>>headscratching
>>>
>>>
>>>>speculation. If for example W2k probes RAM to make sure
>>>
>>>its accesses are
>>>
>>>
>>>>all within a very small window of response time, and
>>>
>>>declares a stick
>>>
>>>
>>>>unreliable because its response falls outside that
>>>
>>>window, and somehow
>>>
>>>
>>>>on the board one of 3 or 4 sticks will always fall
>>>
>>>outside that window...
>>>
>>>
>>>>You're CERTAIN, from the board manual, that 3x128MB
>>>
>>>sticks is an OK
>>>
>>>
>>>>configuration? (If you don't have the manual, check the
>>>
>>>board mfr's
>>>
>>>
>>>>website.)
>>>>
>>>>As far as the difference in reported RAM sizes goes,
>
> that
>
>>>is the result
>>>
>>>
>>>>of different methods of counting. Merely an ambiguity.
>>>
>>>Some people
>>>
>>>
>>>>consider 1K to be 1000 bytes, others 1024 bytes. Scale
>>>
>>>that up to MB and
>>>
>>>
>>>>GB and it's quite a difference. People write software
>>>
>>>that way too. And
>>>
>>>
>>>>marketeers love it; what's on the HDD box blurb usually
>>>
>>>is usually based
>>>
>>>
>>>>on the 1000 number, which is [technically] not correct
>>>
>>>but is a bigger #.
>>>
>>>
>>>>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Well thanks for the help anyway. I tried all 3
>>>>>individually in different slots and then in pairs
>
> (about
>
>>>16
>>>
>>>
>>>>>different combinations). No Luck.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is really funny is that the BIOS will show 128+
>>>
>>>for
>>>
>>>
>>>>>each stick but the W2K System Properties or Task
>>>
>>>Manager
>>>
>>>
>>>>>shows still the same amount everytime 126512 no matter
>>>
>>>if
>>>
>>>
>>>>>the chip has more or not. I thought maybe this number
>>>>>should show at least some variance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>Brian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>Brian - even apparently identical RAM sticks from the
>>>>>
>>>>>same manufacturer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>can vary slightly (but enough) in characteristics
>
> like
>
>>>>>timing to disturb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>W2k, which is much more demanding of perfection than
>>>>>
>>>>>BIOS. Particularly
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>if they are from different fabrication runs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Try all 3 sticks one at a time. Then try them in
>
> pairs.
>
>>>>>Do this in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>different RAM slots as well. If W2k is satisfied by
>
> the
>
>>>>>above, then try
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>all 3 at once, in different slot combinations. You
>
> may
>
>>>>>discover that one
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>or two are a bit faster or slower than the other(s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>RAM response is a matter of nanoseconds. Bits travel
>>>>>
>>>>>about an inch per
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>nanosecond. The RAM slots vary in distance from stick
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>processor,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>hence which slot for which stick might make a
>>>
>>>difference
>>>
>>>
>>>>>that affects
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>W2k's decision that a stick(s) is good or bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Brian wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I recently upgraded my RAM from 128MB to 384MB but
>>>>>
>>>>>Windows
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>is still showing only 128MB. On the boot-up screen,
>>>>>
>>>>>also
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>at RAM count up all 384MB are shown.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I let DocMemory run overnight and no problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Windows doesn't show all RAM under System Properties
>>>
>>>or
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Task Manager.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>BTW, all RAM are from the same manufacturer and all
>>>>>
>>>>>three
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>are identical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How can I get W2k to show all the RAM present?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks for the help if anyone knows anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Brian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>.
>>>>
>>
>>.
>>