Ram: more vs. speed?

[MustKillMoe-Wheee!]

My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's on
sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?

 

[John Doe]

My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's on
sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?

If he is using Windows XP, maybe not.

If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more
than 512MB anyway.

How much ram you can use depends on your hardware and software. The 512MB
is a lot for most Windows personal computers, in my opinion.

Good luck.

 

[MustKillMoe-Wheee!]

If he is using Windows XP, maybe not.

If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more
than 512MB anyway.

How much ram you can use depends on your hardware and software. The 512MB
is a lot for most Windows personal computers, in my opinion.

Good luck

Sorry for the lack of info. He's using XP Home Ed. I read somewhere that
if you use pc2100 and pc2700 ram at the same time, the 2700 ram will be
brought down to 2100 speeds.

That's why I was wondering if the extra 128 is worth it for only having 2100
speed.

 

[John Doe]

Sorry for the lack of info. He's using XP Home Ed. I read somewhere
that if you use pc2100 and pc2700 ram at the same time, the 2700 ram
will be brought down to 2100 speeds. That's why I was wondering if the
extra 128 is worth it for only having 2100 speed.

Does that have something to do with whether or not you're going to buy
more memory? I would think that PC2700 on sale would be no more than
PC2100. Yes you should buy it.

Running Windows XP with 512MB or 640MB is a huge improvement over 128MB.

 

[Warty]

"I read somewhere that if you use pc2100 and pc2700 ram at the same time,
the 2700 ram will be
brought down to 2100 speeds".


that is correct

Warty

 

[Dave C.]

My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's on
sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?

Yes. Even with Windows XP, you will rarely use more than 512MB of RAM. The
PC2100 will therefore slow the system down. -Dave

 

[Shep©]

If he is using Windows XP, maybe not.

If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more
than 512MB anyway.

Bollocks!!!!!
Another idiot post.



--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
remove obvious to reply
email (e-mail address removed)
Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm

 

[Shep©]

My friend has 128mb at pc2100. I want to buy him a 512 pc2700 that's on
sale. Should I take out the 2100 ram entirely?

Depends on his usage but if his board fully supports the speed of the
512 meg then just use that otherwise it will be dragged down to the PC
2100 speed and for the extra 128 meg it may not be worth the bother.
It's quite complicated actually because if the board
supports,"RAM Interleaving" then having the two sticks in could
actually be good however I would stick with my first supposition e.g
use the new single 512 stick.




--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
remove obvious to reply
email (e-mail address removed)
Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm

 

[John Doe]

Troll.

Path: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!news.glorb.com!news.addix.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Shep¸ <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Ram: more vs. speed?
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:08:06 +0000
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <tL%[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-To: (e-mail address removed)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 2WMKgymvez6BNalrFhvBQQFdocdexxSfWqSSTAJ7BPxoWGrWI=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:420881



Bollocks!!!!!
Another idiot post.



--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
remove obvious to reply
email (e-mail address removed)
Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm

 

[Shep©]

Troll.

You know so little.



--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
remove obvious to reply
email (e-mail address removed)
Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm

 

[David Maynard]

Troll.

He wasn't very diplomatic about it but his point is essentially correct.
Win9x *can* work with more than 512 Meg of RAM.

The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'; the
workaround for which is to limit vcache to under 512 meg in system.ini.

 

[John Doe]

Win9x *can* work with more than 512 Meg of RAM.
The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'; the
workaround for which is to limit vcache to under 512 meg in system.ini.

According to everything I've seen, your workaround for the vcache bug is
slightly off, but in the context of the original post to this discussion
group, this argument is bizarre anyway IMO.

For what it's worth.
Besides that bug, probably only in rare circumstances would anyone be
able to use more than 512MB of RAM with Windows 98 due to the fact that
resource memory is limited/fixed regardless of RAM size.

 

[David Maynard]

According to everything I've seen, your workaround for the vcache bug is
slightly off, but in the context of the original post to this discussion
group, this argument is bizarre anyway IMO.

'Slightly off' how?

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912

There's another problem at 1 Gig RAM with shared memory video

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871

but we weren't talking about a gig, or more, of RAM.

For what it's worth.
Besides that bug, probably only in rare circumstances would anyone be
able to use more than 512MB of RAM with Windows 98 due to the fact that
resource memory is limited/fixed regardless of RAM size.

Depends on what one is doing with it. Photoshop will happily fill up RAM
for you.

 

[John Doe]

'Slightly off' how?

I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to what
that value should be.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912

One of Microsoft's workarounds in that article is to remove all but 512MB
of RAM.

There's another problem at 1 Gig RAM ...
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871

Microsoft's workaround in that article is to remove all but 512MB of RAM.

Depends on what one is doing with it.

There might be exceptions, you might even be able to produce an exception,
but I didn't say there wasn't.

If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft wouldn't
be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM.

 

[David Maynard]

I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to what
that value should be.




One of Microsoft's workarounds in that article is to remove all but 512MB
of RAM.

That's a misleading comment. Removing 'the problem' is always a
'workaround' (sic), as in "Doc, it hurts when I laugh. Then don't laugh",
but you leave out the fact they first describe precisely the solution I
stated: limiting vcache to under 512 Meg in system.ini.

Microsoft's workaround in that article is to remove all but 512MB of RAM.

For one, it's specific to motherboards with shared memory video and,
second, I'd suggest they say 512 Meg to avoid making the description
unnecessarily long by repeating the other note about limiting vcache. Or
else the title would be "Blue Screen Appears When You Start Computer with
'512 MB' or More of RAM" rather than "Blue Screen Appears When You Start
Computer with 1 GB or More of RAM." 512 Meg is the 'works here without
further explanation required' solution.

There might be exceptions, you might even be able to produce an exception,
but I didn't say there wasn't.

I already gave you one, that you snipped out, on the same line with what
you left in.

If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft wouldn't
be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM.

Two problems with that conclusion. The first is, no, recommending it be
removed to fix an otherwise unfixable problem doesn't suggest more than 512
Meg isn't 'useful', if it would WORK, and it would be a heck of a lot
easier for MS to simply say so rather than provide a workaround in the
first article. And the second problem is that Microsoft is not, as you
claim, "explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM." It
only looks that way with your selective ignoring of the top listed solution
in the first article, limit vcache to 512 MB, and ignoring the specific
hardware configuration, shared RAM video, that potentially conflicts with 1
GB in the second.

 

[John Doe]

John Doe wrote:
....

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912


That's a misleading comment. Removing 'the problem' is always a
'workaround' (sic),

I think "sic" usually refers to the preceding word, but Google shows
647,000 English messages for "workaround" including your usage a few posts
ago. I've lost something in the translation.

but you leave out the fact they first describe precisely the solution I
stated: limiting vcache to under 512 Meg in system.ini.

I hereby plainly state and acknowledge that is another workaround.

A third workaround is to "Use the System Configuration utility to limit
the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512MB or less." That workaround
is actually listed second in the first article, but it's the third
mentioned here in this current thread.

Two out of three workarounds listed on that page make more than 512MB of
memory completely unusable.

Those two are the second and third workarounds. I can see that the
workaround you like is on top. However, the article says "use one of the
following methods" and does not even hint that the workarounds are
arranged in order of priority. Looks like there was a 33% chance that any
of those three workarounds could have ended up being the first.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871

For one, it's specific to motherboards with shared memory video and,
second, I'd suggest they say 512 Meg to avoid making the description
unnecessarily long by repeating the other note about limiting vcache.

I'm glad you provided the references.

Or else the title would be "Blue Screen Appears When You Start Computer
with '512 MB' or More of RAM" rather than "Blue Screen Appears When You
Start Computer with 1 GB or More of RAM." 512 Meg is the 'works here
without further explanation required' solution.

Yes, it certainly is a mess.

The first article explicitly states:
"CAUSE ... Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle 1 GB or
more of RAM. 1 GB or more of RAM can lead to potential system
instability."

That statement has nothing to do with shared memory.

Two problems with that conclusion. The first is, no, recommending it be
removed to fix an otherwise unfixable problem doesn't suggest more than
512 Meg isn't 'useful', if it would WORK, and it would be a heck of a
lot easier for MS to simply say so rather than provide a workaround in
the first article.

Some sellers could not care less, wouldn't know better, and would gladly
install whatever the mainboard can handle.

In my opinion, it wouldn't be easier.

And the second problem is that Microsoft is not, as you
claim, "explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM."
It only looks that way with your selective ignoring of the top listed
solution in the first article, limit vcache to 512 MB, and ignoring the
specific hardware configuration, shared RAM video, that potentially
conflicts with 1 GB in the second.

Two of three solutions in the first article are to disable or remove the
extra memory. The only solution mentioned in the second article is to
remove the extra memory. Shared video memory is mentioned in the first
article as well, and that includes memory used by AGP video cards.
Resource memory is fixed in Windows 98 and Millennium, regardless of RAM
quantity, and most Windows 98 users are going to run into problems before
using 512MB of system memory. Windows 98 and Millennium were not designed
for more than 512MB of RAM.

Have a great day (or night) anyway.

 

[David Maynard]

I think "sic" usually refers to the preceding word,

Yes. Sure does.

but Google shows
647,000 English messages for "workaround" including your usage a few posts
ago. I've lost something in the translation.

I have no idea why you'd be doing google searches to find the word right in
front of the "(sic)" since it's, well, right there in front of it.

I hereby plainly state and acknowledge that is another workaround.

That really settles it, you know. The question was whether windows98 could
work with more than 512 Meg of RAM. Workaround 1: yes. The rest is moot.

A third workaround is to "Use the System Configuration utility to limit
the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512MB or less." That workaround
is actually listed second in the first article, but it's the third
mentioned here in this current thread.

Two out of three workarounds listed on that page make more than 512MB of
memory completely unusable.

That there are 2, or a thousand, ways to have it not work is irrelevant as
it's not a 'vote'. One working solution is all it takes.

Those two are the second and third workarounds.

Since the point of having more than 512 Meg of RAM is to use more than 512
Meg of RAM I don't consider those to be 'workarounds', regardless of
Microsoft calling them such, and is why I placed the "(sic)" after the term
up above.

I can see that the
workaround you like is on top.

The issue was whether Windows98 could be made to work with more than 512
Meg of RAM and I "like" it because it satisfies the goal.

However, the article says "use one of the
following methods" and does not even hint that the workarounds are
arranged in order of priority.

It doesn't need to 'hint'. In the first place, that's standard practice
and, in the second, it's the one that accomplishes the goal. That's how I
pick solutions.

Looks like there was a 33% chance that any
of those three workarounds could have ended up being the first.

No, the logic of the order is obvious. The first one solves the problem,
making the extra RAM usable, but requires a registry edit: a thing that
some people are reluctant to do so some alternatives for the squeamish are
in order. The second one is simply checking a box and typing in a number:
simple, easy, and 'safe' but it renders the extra RAM unusable and, while
you can do it 'right away', it's silly to leave the unused RAM in the box
forever. The third one requires opening the box and messing with the hardware.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311871




I'm glad you provided the references.

You are, no doubt, thanking me for the second link which has as the one and
only sentence under "Symptoms:" If your computer has 1 gigabyte (GB) or
more of random access memory (RAM)
---> with shared video memory,<---
the computer may boot to a blue screen error when you try to start Windows
Millennium Edition (Me) or Windows 98.

Yes, it certainly is a mess.
Hardly.


The first article explicitly states:
"CAUSE ... Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle 1 GB or
more of RAM. 1 GB or more of RAM can lead to potential system
instability."

You'll notice that 1 GB is not the amount of memory the other poster was
considering.

That statement has nothing to do with shared memory.

Try reading the whole thing instead of culling a phrase or two here and
there like you did the last time.

Some sellers could not care less, wouldn't know better, and would gladly
install whatever the mainboard can handle.

In which case they'd have a problem and have to go look at the knowledge
base and if it said to simply remove the extra memory the matter would be
over. But, no... there is a workaround for using it.

If it just plain didn't work or only worked, as you imply, 1/3 of the time
it would be a lot less pain and misery for MS to simply say "don't do it."

In my opinion, it wouldn't be easier.

In my opinion that's an opinion derived simply for the sake of arguing.

Two of three solutions in the first article are to disable or remove the
extra memory.

Which, as I mentioned above, is irrelevant.

The only solution mentioned in the second article is to
remove the extra memory. Shared video memory is mentioned in the first
article as well, and that includes memory used by AGP video cards.

No, "shared video memory" is a specific term and does not 'include' AGP.

Resource memory is fixed in Windows 98 and Millennium, regardless of RAM
quantity, and most Windows 98 users are going to run into problems before
using 512MB of system memory. Windows 98 and Millennium were not designed
for more than 512MB of RAM.

The issue was not 'most users', 'typical users', or what you, or I, think
are the apps they should be using. The issue was whether Windows98 could
work with more than 512 Meg of RAM and the fact of the matter is it can,
with a registry change.

Have a great day (or night) anyway.

You too.

 

[Conor]

I should have said "vague". I have never seen a clear statement as to what
that value should be.

Anything below 512MB.

If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft wouldn't
be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of RAM.

That article was written when RAM cost shitloads.

 

[JS]

The issue was whether Windows98 could
work with more than 512 Meg of RAM and the fact of the matter is it can,
with a registry change.

I have 768MBytes of ram and Win98SE and it works great. See below for
additional refences regarding using greater than 512MBytes of ram. Ask on
the microsoft usenet groups and you will get a reply from a microsoft MVP
indicating that all you need is the proper vcache settings for this to
work. And yes, win98 will use all of this ram. I have verified this with
SysMon many times. Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does
need to be setup properly.

http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#vcache
http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm

Try:

microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
microsoft.public.win98.setup

One reponse from a microsift MVP:

Because some programs will not run without a swap file. There is no need
to
tinker with it--there is no performance hit unless actual paging occurs and
for most users with 512 mb, the swap file will not be used even though it
exists. The performance tweaks that have existed for years are really
somewhat useless as they were developed when computers were under powered
(ram and CPU).

There are some tweaks required when 768 mb or more of ram is being used.
Here's some info on ram you might find helpful:

768 mb or more of ram:

"Out of Memory" Errors with Large Amounts of RAM Installed 253912
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=253912

This article contains instructions which basically say: add this line in
system.ini, under [vcache]: MaxFileCache=512000
***************************

1 gb or more of ram:

Error Message: Insufficient Memory to Initialize Windows 184447
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=184447
***************************

1.5 gb or more of ram:

Computer May Reboot Continuously with More Than 1.5 GB of RAM 304943
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=304943

--
Regards

Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo

 

[David Maynard]

I have 768MBytes of ram and Win98SE and it works great. See below for
additional refences regarding using greater than 512MBytes of ram. Ask on
the microsoft usenet groups and you will get a reply from a microsoft MVP
indicating that all you need is the proper vcache settings for this to
work. And yes, win98 will use all of this ram. I have verified this with
SysMon many times. Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum but it does
need to be setup properly.

Yes. That is what I've been telling John Doe but he keeps insisting on
claiming it won't work with selective culling and misreading of the
knowledge base articles.

http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#vcache
http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm

Try:

microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
microsoft.public.win98.setup

One reponse from a microsift MVP:

Because some programs will not run without a swap file. There is no need
to
tinker with it--there is no performance hit unless actual paging occurs and
for most users with 512 mb, the swap file will not be used even though it
exists. The performance tweaks that have existed for years are really
somewhat useless as they were developed when computers were under powered
(ram and CPU).

There are some tweaks required when 768 mb or more of ram is being used.
Here's some info on ram you might find helpful:

768 mb or more of ram:

"Out of Memory" Errors with Large Amounts of RAM Installed 253912
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=253912

This article contains instructions which basically say: add this line in
system.ini, under [vcache]: MaxFileCache=512000
***************************

1 gb or more of ram:

Error Message: Insufficient Memory to Initialize Windows 184447
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=184447
***************************

1.5 gb or more of ram:

Computer May Reboot Continuously with More Than 1.5 GB of RAM 304943
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=304943