View Full Version : Ram
24th Aug 2001, 11:20 PM
Well this is kinda "troubleshooting" but it's not. You see, I don't have this problem, but I'm wondering if I do something if I will have this problem, if it's even real ;)
I hear rumors from time to time of Windows not liking more than 128mb of RAM. Now, what they mean by that, or if it's true, I'm not sure. I have 128mb RAM, and I would like to upgrade. I'm running on WinME. Anything I should be concerned about?
24th Aug 2001, 11:29 PM
IIRC if you increase the RAM to, say, 256, it doesn't actually double the memory because it's not able to utilize anything above 128 with the same efficiency as the first 128.
That doesn't mean it doesn't like more memory, it just means that anything above 128 is not going to be utilized as well as the first 128 (but it's still more memory, so you will notice some increase in performance)
25th Aug 2001, 12:05 AM
1) Is it true Win2k doesn't have this problem?
2) What is IIRC :p
25th Aug 2001, 12:17 AM
2) If I Recall/Remember Correctly
I've had a lot of trouble with addtional ram on my 98SE so I stick to 128, does the job just fine. :)
25th Aug 2001, 12:27 AM
95, 98, 98se could use more than 128 meg, but not very efficiently. So, not as much bang for your buck. Milled seems to handle it a bit better, but don't go over 512...it doesn't like it.
NT, 2K and XP love Ram, and they'll treat it right. Of course, software is a pain sometimes under these Opsys's. Dual boot I say!
25th Aug 2001, 03:01 AM
Running windows 98, I upgraded to 256 megs SD ram. So far, it does increase performance.
(Can't use any other version of windows, as my card hates microsod as much as Rogue Leader does.)
25th Aug 2001, 05:46 AM
I upgraded from 128 to 384 MB and I noted a great performance boost both in Windows and INF.
25th Aug 2001, 06:56 AM
I have 512 megabytes of ram (recently upgraded) running in Win2k, and I run Win98 as well. From what I have noticed Win2k does utilize the ram more efficiently. But, go ahead and upgrade even if you don't have Win2k. It's a very small difference.
25th Aug 2001, 07:33 AM
So, how does windows like huge amounts of DDR DRAM?
25th Aug 2001, 10:57 AM
BTW Linux LOVES RAM! ;)
25th Aug 2001, 12:46 PM
I love RAM too, so you all give me your RAM now thank you
25th Aug 2001, 01:04 PM
1) What's better: CAS 2 or 3.
2) How is $35 for a 256mb PC 133 CAS 3, value wise?
(Specifics for 2:)
• Module Size: 256MB
• Package: 168-pin DIMM
• Feature: SDRAM, PC133
• Configuration: 32Meg x 64
• DIMM Type: Unbuffered
• Error Checking: Non-parity
• Speed: 7.5ns
• Voltage: 3.3V
• SDRAM Timings:CL=3
25th Aug 2001, 02:41 PM
One of the two (CAS 2 or 3) is faster than the other, but since I never cared for that, I don't remember which one it was... :D
I don't know the regular prices at your country, but here in Germany this price is ok, it's the price RAM costs atm here.
About the amount of memory: You'll notice every increase in RAM, the question is how much.... :) I have 384 MB, not more problems than before (128 MB), but a faster system. But never ever go over 512 MB with a 9x system (I think that includes ME, but I'm not sure).
And yeah, Linux & NT/2k love RAM.... ;)
25th Aug 2001, 03:02 PM
My last question is what my board can support.
I have a MS 6330 (K7T Turbo).
Under 3D Mark 2001, it says I have 3 slots-- 2 are free, one has the 128mb DIMM in it. I just need to know what the max size is per slot. The only thing that hints me as to what it is is under "Memory Array" and it says: "Max Module Capacity: 256KB" Now, I know I can have more than 256k ram per slot ;) Maybe this means 256mb per slot?
EDIT: Also, isn't there something about some boards requiring all the RAM modules to be the same size? Anyone know how I would find out if that applies to my mobo? What I'm looking to do is add a 256 and 128 to my existing 128.
25th Aug 2001, 07:35 PM
I think all new boards can handle different RAM size ...
For more info check your mobo manual or the website, or wait till the next post *g*
If you really want to use all your RAM efficiently use Win2k, but don't forget that it also -needs- more RAM. I heard about a minimum of 256 MB, not less!
Win9x runs faster from 128 to 256 and 256 to 512, but the last step is nearly useless... performance income of 1% or anythin' like that :rolleyes:
26th Aug 2001, 06:04 AM
LifesBane, do you mean this board (http://enlight.com.my/msi/ms-6330%20k7t%20turbo.htm) ?
If yes, then put in memory as you please... :) It has the VIA KT133A chipset and the VT82C686B southbridge, and it supports your RAM modules. You can have up to 1.5 GB of RAM divided into three slots... (I wonder if that means that you have a restriction of 512 MB per slot, since 3x512 is 1.5x1024, but 256 is no problem).
EDIT: Didn't see your edit. Forget about the problem with different sizes, that was with former RAM technologies... ;) You can put in different modules without problems.
26th Aug 2001, 09:10 AM
That's it ;)
26th Aug 2001, 09:20 AM
No problem. ;)
26th Aug 2001, 05:44 PM
Someone asked how windoze likes large amounts of ddr? I have 512 ddr in my new rig, and it likes it just fine. I don't have anything else to compare it to, though (as in other ddr machines, I have only used sdr before.)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.