Memory above 512 MB

[Papa]

I will be installing two 256 MB chips into my daughter's Windows 98SE system
soon. It will be in addition to the two 64 MB chips in there now. So she
will have a total of 640 MB of RAM. Then I intend to upgrade her system to
Windows XP Pro. Her CPU is running at 1.3 GHZ and her HD has 40 GB and is 10
percent full.

Can I expect any problems with Windows XP in going to 640 MB of RAM? I know
there are some steps that need to be taken with W98 operating systems when
512 MB is exceeded.

Thanks.

 

[Tom Porterfield]

I will be installing two 256 MB chips into my daughter's Windows 98SE system
soon. It will be in addition to the two 64 MB chips in there now. So she
will have a total of 640 MB of RAM. Then I intend to upgrade her system to
Windows XP Pro. Her CPU is running at 1.3 GHZ and her HD has 40 GB and is 10
percent full.

Can I expect any problems with Windows XP in going to 640 MB of RAM? I know
there are some steps that need to be taken with W98 operating systems when
512 MB is exceeded.

No problems from XP with this amount of RAM.
--
Tom Porterfield
MS-MVP MCE
http://support.telop.org

Please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup only.

 

[Kenny]

Win98 will have problems with more than 512MB RAM. There is a hack to get
round this but since you're going to XP not worth trying. Also some m/b's
don't like mixing RAM types, if so stick to the 2x256MB. Run the
compatibility wizard from the XP CD before you start and much better to do a
clean install rather than an upgrade from Win98.

 

[S.Heenan]

I will be installing two 256 MB chips into my daughter's Windows 98SE
system soon. It will be in addition to the two 64 MB chips in there
now. So she will have a total of 640 MB of RAM. Then I intend to
upgrade her system to Windows XP Pro. Her CPU is running at 1.3 GHZ
and her HD has 40 GB and is 10 percent full.

Do not upgrade from Windows98SE to Windows XP. Backup her data and perform a
clean install of Windows XP. The upgrade version of WinXP may be used for
this purpose. Simply insert the qualifying Win98 CD when prompted by setup.
The OEM version will allow only a clean installation.

Can I expect any problems with Windows XP in going to 640 MB of RAM?
I know there are some steps that need to be taken with W98 operating
systems when 512 MB is exceeded.

You should not have any problems regarding the amount of memory.

 

[Papa]

Great advice. I'll do a backup and then do a clean install, which, as you
well know, prevents the system from inheriting old problems, among other
things.

And thanks for answering the memory question.

Regards.

 

[Papa]

Thanks, Tom

No problems from XP with this amount of RAM.
--
Tom Porterfield
MS-MVP MCE
http://support.telop.org

Please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup only.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Great advice. I'll do a backup and then do a clean install, which, as
you well know, prevents the system from inheriting old problems,
among other things.

Although many people will tell you that formatting and installing
cleanly is the best way to go, I disagree. Unlike with previous
versions of Windows, an upgrade to XP replaces almost everything,
and usually works very well. Old problems are rarely inherited.

My recommendation is the opposite of the one you're replying to:
at least try the upgrade, since it's much easier than a clean
installation. You can always change your mind and reinstall
cleanly if problems develop.

And thanks for answering the memory question.

Just confirming that the problem you're alluding to in Windows 98
doesn't exist in XP. There's no problem with 640MB, or even more.

However, whether your daughter will make effective use of that
much RAM is another story; it might well be overkill. RAM is
helpful to the extent that it keeps you from using the page file.
Once you have enough RAM for that, more does almost nothing extra
for you. How much RAM you need to not use the page file depends
on what apps you run, but for most people running a common range
of business applications, it's somewhere between 256 and 512MB.
*Some* people, however--for example those editing large
photographic images--can effectively use more, often *much* more.

So unless she's a very demanding user, I would begin by adding a
single 256MB stick and monitoring page file use (you can use this
free program:
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm). If it's
significant, you can always add the second one later.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup



memory.

 

[Papa]

Thanks for your comments. Appreciated.

I'll have to side with S. Heenan, though. I've rescued way too many sick
computers from friends, and invariably a clean install does the trick -
whereas I have spun many a wheel trying to do an upgrade only to eventually
go for the clean install anyway. A clean install is simply easier, and
well - clean ;>)

As for what my daughter needs in the way of computer capability, I am well
aware of the economic and functional importance of fitting hardware and
software to the intended use. Her applications really do require that much
memory. Beyond that, I will again have to disagree with you. In my opinion
256 MB for an XP system is just marginal, even for office software, which
anymore does a lot of audio/visual tasks.

Regards.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Thanks for your comments. Appreciated.

You're welcome.

I'll have to side with S. Heenan, though.

Your choice, of course.

I've rescued way too many
sick computers from friends, and invariably a clean install does the
trick - whereas I have spun many a wheel trying to do an upgrade only
to eventually go for the clean install anyway.

With WIndows XP or earlier versions? With earlier versions, I
would agree with you. But not with XP.

A clean install is
simply easier, and well - clean ;>)

Easier? I think it's much harder. You have to backup and restore
all your data, restore all your applications, reconfigure the
operating system and the applications the way you want them, etc.
Depending on how much customization you have, it can be a long
involved process.

But the decision is yours, not mine.

As for what my daughter needs in the way of computer capability, I am
well aware of the economic and functional importance of fitting
hardware and software to the intended use. Her applications really do
require that much memory.

OK. I was just cautioning you to be sure. If you already are,
then that's fine.

Beyond that, I will again have to disagree
with you. In my opinion 256 MB for an XP system is just marginal,
even for office software, which anymore does a lot of audio/visual
tasks.

As I said, it depends on the user and what he does. I know many
people running XP quite happily with 256MB, and their performance
is fine.

 

[Ron Martell]

Do not upgrade from Windows98SE to Windows XP. Backup her data and perform a
clean install of Windows XP.

Why?

During Beta testing of Windows XP I installed each new beta release as
an upgrade. And on a number of occasions I also installed the same
beta release as a clean install.

The only substantive difference that I ever discovered between an
upgrade and a clean install was that a clean install was always a
royal p.i.t.a. because of the hours and hours and hours and hours of
work that it took to install applications, configure them for use, and
restore data files from backups.



Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Ron Martell]

Great advice. I'll do a backup and then do a clean install, which, as you
well know, prevents the system from inheriting old problems, among other
things.

And thanks for answering the memory question.

Windows XP basically does a clean install, even in an upgrade
situation. It starts by renaming the existing Windows folder and then
installing a clean copy of Windows XP in a new Windows folder. It
then imports only what it needs (registry entries, application DLLs,
fonts, etc) from the old Windows folder and deletes it.

Because Windows XP is based on the NT kernel very little if anything
of the system files from Windows 98 will be carried forward by the
upgrade.

And if you try the upgrade and it turns out to be problematic then you
still have the option of doing a clean install. But the vast majority
of upgrades from Windows 9x to XP do turn out well, and by doing so
you will save a great deal of work, and there is always something that
gets missed from the data file backup when you prepare for a clean
install.

Before doing the upgrade install you should read the article on
upgrading to Windows XP by former MVP Gary Woodruff at
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpupgrad.htm

And if you do opt for the clean install route you should consider
using the Files and Settings Transfer Wizard from the Windows XP CD to
back up your Windows 98 information to another hard drive partition, a
network drive, or a removable backup device. Gary Woodruff also has
an article on using FASTW which you will find at
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/fast.htm


Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[David Candy]

Win 98 might or might not have problems. It depends on your AGP video card settings.

 

[Papa]

In my circle of friends, 256 MB is inadequate, and in my judgment 256 MB
would be marginal on anyone's XP system.

In answer to your question, it was in regard to upgrading to XP. I have done
it numerous times, and, without exception, the clean install was easier.
Getting the latest drivers, and reinstalling user software, is a piece of
cake.

Best regards.

 

[Hilary Karp]

See these links for good info on upgrade and clean installations:

http://michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html

http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpupgrad.htm

 

[Alias]

See these links for good info on upgrade and clean installations:

http://michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html

http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpupgrad.htm

Why don't you install the RAM after you install XP?

Alias

 

[Alexander Grigoriev]

Make sure to format as NTFS from the beginning (select during setup, NTFS
Quck format).

 

[Alexander Grigoriev]

You want to use NTFS for Windows XP. But convertion from FAT-32 during
upgrade install would give you very suboptimal allocation unit size: 512
bytes. This is why you'd better do clean install.

 

[S.Heenan]

Thanks for your comments. Appreciated.

I'll have to side with S. Heenan, though. I've rescued way too many
sick computers from friends, and invariably a clean install does the
trick - whereas I have spun many a wheel trying to do an upgrade only
to eventually go for the clean install anyway. A clean install is
simply easier, and well - clean ;>)

As for what my daughter needs in the way of computer capability, I am
well aware of the economic and functional importance of fitting
hardware and software to the intended use. Her applications really do
require that much memory. Beyond that, I will again have to disagree
with you. In my opinion 256 MB for an XP system is just marginal,
even for office software, which anymore does a lot of audio/visual
tasks.

My very last experience with an upgrade install was moving from Windows 2000
to Windows XP, in late 2001. It wasn't pretty. I have done several inplace
or repair installs of XP, mainly following a major hardware change. Those
went well, for the most part. My reasoning is something like this: It takes
the same amount of time and effort to do an upgrade and repair install.
Backing up and restoring data should not be a "biggie" since anyone who
values their bits and bytes already has backups. <Mr.T> "I pity the fool who
doesn't backup their stuff." Ghost, Drive Image and Acronis True Image are
all invaluable imaging tools. Ntbackup works well enough. Nero can be used.
A good 8x DVD burner like the Pioneer 107 is ~$85 USD, a CD burner is half
that. In short, there's no excuse for anyone to lose their data to a
hardware failure. I assume a hard drive will /always/ fail. It it doesn't,
it's gravy.

I agree about the amount of memory for Windows XP. 256MB is marginal, 384MB
is good, and 512MB is enough for all but the most demanding tasks.

 

[S.Heenan]

Why?

During Beta testing of Windows XP I installed each new beta release as
an upgrade. And on a number of occasions I also installed the same
beta release as a clean install.

The only substantive difference that I ever discovered between an
upgrade and a clean install was that a clean install was always a
royal p.i.t.a. because of the hours and hours and hours and hours of
work that it took to install applications, configure them for use, and
restore data files from backups.

Disk image. Quick to make one and slightly quicker to restore it. Nothing is
as easy. If my WD decides to go south, I've lost nothing I can't recover
after swapping out the defective hard drive.

 

[Ron Martell]

You want to use NTFS for Windows XP. But convertion from FAT-32 during
upgrade install would give you very suboptimal allocation unit size: 512
bytes. This is why you'd better do clean install.

The FAT32 partition can be adjusted so it is aligned on a 4K boundary
prior to converting to NTFS (both Partition Magic and BootItNG
(www.bootitng.com) will do this). Then the conversion will result in
4K clusters.

See MVP Alex Nichol's article on converting to NTFS at
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/ntfscvt.htm

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."