4 Gb RAM with Win XP

I know that 32-bit XP has a max of about 3.2 Gb RAM. I built a system in Aug
07 with an Asus M2N-E motherboard and 2 x 1 Gb Kingston DDR2-800 RAM. Seven
months later, the RAM had dropped in price by 65%; I couldn't find 2 x 512
Mb, so bought another 2 Gb of Kingston. Windows read 3.25 Gb, but I started
to get a lot of crashes (I had had Win problems before but bought the new RAM
just after having my PC sorted out). One message on error reporting referred
to RAM as a possible cause, but crashed while I was reading it.

Although Asus suggest filling 1,2 or 4 slots, I've just booted with 3 Gb.
OK until I start a low-demand game (Lionheart, Silent Storm 2), when it
quickly crashes. Since I built the PC Win has tended to attribute errors to
a device driver problem, but checks always show all drivers up-to-date and
problem-free. Any advice?

M
Fri Mar 28 02:47:20 PDT 2008


"Faustino" <Faustino@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48E07A70-76A9-4FE2-BA21-ED7250EEAEC4@microsoft.com...
>I know that 32-bit XP has a max of about 3.2 Gb RAM. I built a system in
>Aug
> 07 with an Asus M2N-E motherboard and 2 x 1 Gb Kingston DDR2-800 RAM.
> Seven
> months later, the RAM had dropped in price by 65%; I couldn't find 2 x 512
> Mb, so bought another 2 Gb of Kingston. Windows read 3.25 Gb, but I
> started
> to get a lot of crashes (I had had Win problems before but bought the new
> RAM
> just after having my PC sorted out). One message on error reporting
> referred
> to RAM as a possible cause, but crashed while I was reading it.
>
> Although Asus suggest filling 1,2 or 4 slots, I've just booted with 3 Gb.
> OK until I start a low-demand game (Lionheart, Silent Storm 2), when it
> quickly crashes. Since I built the PC Win has tended to attribute errors
> to
> a device driver problem, but checks always show all drivers up-to-date and
> problem-free. Any advice?
>

The one thing you could try is to go into your BIOS and drop the access
speed of the RAM to the next lower value. Often motherboards are
manufactured before the top speeds of RAM become available and so they are
not fully tested.

BeterHans
Fri Mar 28 03:01:28 PDT 2008

different memory will make the system unstable

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Blattus_Slafaly_0/00_=3F_=3F_=3F?=
Fri Mar 28 06:32:04 PDT 2008

BeterHans PAN wrote:
> different memory will make the system unstable
>
>
>
Low density ram works in 100% of systems while high density ram only
works in 10% of systems. Hi density is x128 while low is x64.



--
Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8

Faustino
Fri Mar 28 06:50:03 PDT 2008

Thanks for replies.

1. BHP, all the RAM is Kingston DDR2-800.
2. BS, RAM density? What is that, how do I tell? There's nothing on the
pack label. Kingston is pretty mainstream, I assume the density is whatever
is normal.

"Blattus Slafaly 0/00 ? ? ?" wrote:

> BeterHans PAN wrote:
> > different memory will make the system unstable
> >
> >
> >
> Low density ram works in 100% of systems while high density ram only
> works in 10% of systems. Hi density is x128 while low is x64.
>
>
>
> --
> Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8
>

Daniel
Fri Mar 28 08:55:07 PDT 2008

Faustino at microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support wrote:

> I know that 32-bit XP has a max of about 3.2 Gb RAM. I built a
> system in Aug 07 with an Asus M2N-E motherboard and 2 x 1 Gb Kingston
> DDR2-800 RAM. Seven months later, the RAM had dropped in price by
> 65%; I couldn't find 2 x 512 Mb, so bought another 2 Gb of Kingston.
> Windows read 3.25 Gb, but I started to get a lot of crashes (I had
> had Win problems before but bought the new RAM just after having my
> PC sorted out). One message on error reporting referred to RAM as a
> possible cause, but crashed while I was reading it.(...)

Your new RAM is bad.

You can check it with a software like Memtest86+
(http://www.memtest86.com/) or Windows Memory Dignostic
(http://oca.microsoft.com/en/mtinst.exe)


--
[ ]'s

Daniel J.

Unknown
Fri Mar 28 11:29:22 PDT 2008

Please explain that ridiculous comment.
"Blattus Slafaly 0/00 ? ? ?" <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote in
message news:47ecf32a$0$30560$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> BeterHans PAN wrote:
>> different memory will make the system unstable
>>
> Low density ram works in 100% of systems while high density ram only works
> in 10% of systems. Hi density is x128 while low is x64.
>
>
>
> --
> Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Blattus_Slafaly_0/00_=3F_=3F_=3F?=
Fri Mar 28 15:08:34 PDT 2008

Unknown wrote:
> Please explain that ridiculous comment.
> "Blattus Slafaly 0/00 ? ? ?" <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote in
> message news:47ecf32a$0$30560$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> BeterHans PAN wrote:
>>> different memory will make the system unstable
>>>
>> Low density ram works in 100% of systems while high density ram only works
>> in 10% of systems. Hi density is x128 while low is x64.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8
>
>
How to tell if your 1GB module is a low or high density module?

* All low density 1GB modules are made with 16 chips (8 chips on
each side) using 64Mx8 device.
* All high density 1GB modules are made with 16 chips (8 chips on
each side) using 128Mx4 device.

It costs memory manufacturers almost the same to produce Low Density 1GB
modules which have 100% compatibility with all systems on the market,
comparing to producing high density 1GB modules. So why would
manufacturers be so foolish to produce high density 1GB modules which
only have 10% compatibility with systems on the market? The reason is
simple, because high density 128Mx4 devices are mainly designed for used
in slower server chipset/segment (Registered) which are not designed for
PC chipset/segment (Unbuffered).

--
Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8

Faustino
Fri Mar 28 17:16:00 PDT 2008

It was a recently-released high-end board, I think it handles 1066 MHz. I'd
had no trouble with 2Gb of 800 MHz RAM

"M.I.5¾" wrote:

>
> "Faustino" <Faustino@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:48E07A70-76A9-4FE2-BA21-ED7250EEAEC4@microsoft.com...
> >I know that 32-bit XP has a max of about 3.2 Gb RAM. I built a system in
> >Aug
> > 07 with an Asus M2N-E motherboard and 2 x 1 Gb Kingston DDR2-800 RAM.
> > Seven
> > months later, the RAM had dropped in price by 65%; I couldn't find 2 x 512
> > Mb, so bought another 2 Gb of Kingston. Windows read 3.25 Gb, but I
> > started
> > to get a lot of crashes (I had had Win problems before but bought the new
> > RAM
> > just after having my PC sorted out). One message on error reporting
> > referred
> > to RAM as a possible cause, but crashed while I was reading it.
> >
> > Although Asus suggest filling 1,2 or 4 slots, I've just booted with 3 Gb.
> > OK until I start a low-demand game (Lionheart, Silent Storm 2), when it
> > quickly crashes. Since I built the PC Win has tended to attribute errors
> > to
> > a device driver problem, but checks always show all drivers up-to-date and
> > problem-free. Any advice?
> >
>
> The one thing you could try is to go into your BIOS and drop the access
> speed of the RAM to the next lower value. Often motherboards are
> manufactured before the top speeds of RAM become available and so they are
> not fully tested.
>
>
>

Faustino
Fri Mar 28 17:30:01 PDT 2008


Daniel, I downloaded Windiag, but none of the programs suggested to open it
with seem appropriate. wd's propertires say file type "file". Suggestion
please? For Memtest86, I'll have to get a disk mailed from the US to
Australia.

Windows System found 3.25 Gb, suggesting to me (with limited tech
knowledge)that it worked.

"Daniel J." wrote:

> Faustino at microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support wrote:
>
> > I know that 32-bit XP has a max of about 3.2 Gb RAM. I built a
> > system in Aug 07 with an Asus M2N-E motherboard and 2 x 1 Gb Kingston
> > DDR2-800 RAM. Seven months later, the RAM had dropped in price by
> > 65%; I couldn't find 2 x 512 Mb, so bought another 2 Gb of Kingston.
> > Windows read 3.25 Gb, but I started to get a lot of crashes (I had
> > had Win problems before but bought the new RAM just after having my
> > PC sorted out). One message on error reporting referred to RAM as a
> > possible cause, but crashed while I was reading it.(...)
>
> Your new RAM is bad.
>
> You can check it with a software like Memtest86+
> (http://www.memtest86.com/) or Windows Memory Dignostic
> (http://oca.microsoft.com/en/mtinst.exe)
>
>
> --
> [ ]'s
>
> Daniel J.
>

Faustino
Fri Mar 28 18:03:00 PDT 2008

PS: I realised that I could download Memtest 86, but I have a problem with
running it - this has occurred with some other downloads, e.g. latest ATI
drivers, in the last 24 hours: I hit "Run" in the dialog box and the process
terminates (sigh).

"Daniel J." wrote:

> Faustino at microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support wrote:
>
> > I know that 32-bit XP has a max of about 3.2 Gb RAM. I built a
> > system in Aug 07 with an Asus M2N-E motherboard and 2 x 1 Gb Kingston
> > DDR2-800 RAM. Seven months later, the RAM had dropped in price by
> > 65%; I couldn't find 2 x 512 Mb, so bought another 2 Gb of Kingston.
> > Windows read 3.25 Gb, but I started to get a lot of crashes (I had
> > had Win problems before but bought the new RAM just after having my
> > PC sorted out). One message on error reporting referred to RAM as a
> > possible cause, but crashed while I was reading it.(...)
>
> Your new RAM is bad.
>
> You can check it with a software like Memtest86+
> (http://www.memtest86.com/) or Windows Memory Dignostic
> (http://oca.microsoft.com/en/mtinst.exe)
>
>
> --
> [ ]'s
>
> Daniel J.
>

mike
Fri Mar 28 18:15:24 PDT 2008

Faustino wrote:
> PS: I realised that I could download Memtest 86, but I have a problem with
> running it - this has occurred with some other downloads, e.g. latest ATI
> drivers, in the last 24 hours: I hit "Run" in the dialog box and the process
> terminates (sigh).

I had the same problem with the latest release of memtest86 (3.4, I think).
Turned out was caused by bad ram.
Much earlier version of memtest86, (1.65, I think) did run.
I assume you've tried the obvious of running/testing it with only the
two 512's

> "Daniel J." wrote:
>
>> Faustino at microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support wrote:
>>
>>> I know that 32-bit XP has a max of about 3.2 Gb RAM. I built a
>>> system in Aug 07 with an Asus M2N-E motherboard and 2 x 1 Gb Kingston
>>> DDR2-800 RAM. Seven months later, the RAM had dropped in price by
>>> 65%; I couldn't find 2 x 512 Mb, so bought another 2 Gb of Kingston.
>>> Windows read 3.25 Gb, but I started to get a lot of crashes (I had
>>> had Win problems before but bought the new RAM just after having my
>>> PC sorted out). One message on error reporting referred to RAM as a
>>> possible cause, but crashed while I was reading it.(...)
>> Your new RAM is bad.
>>
>> You can check it with a software like Memtest86+
>> (http://www.memtest86.com/) or Windows Memory Dignostic
>> (http://oca.microsoft.com/en/mtinst.exe)
>>
>>
>> --
>> [ ]'s
>>
>> Daniel J.
>>


--
Return address is VALID!

Unknown
Sat Mar 29 10:51:15 PDT 2008

Your statement is totally inaccurate. High definition modules require more
pins. (More address bits).
A high definition module will only work on a board with the correct pin
assignment.
Space is the deciding factor. Space is limited on a laptop and therefore
uses the highest density
available.
Low density modules are NOT 100% compatible with all systems on the market.
Processor or clock speed
is the biggest determining factor.
"Blattus Slafaly 0/00 ? ? ?" <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote in
message news:47ed6c26$0$6489$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Unknown wrote:
>> Please explain that ridiculous comment.
>> "Blattus Slafaly 0/00 ? ? ?" <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote in
>> message news:47ecf32a$0$30560$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> BeterHans PAN wrote:
>>>> different memory will make the system unstable
>>>>
>>> Low density ram works in 100% of systems while high density ram only
>>> works in 10% of systems. Hi density is x128 while low is x64.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8
>>
>>
> How to tell if your 1GB module is a low or high density module?
>
> * All low density 1GB modules are made with 16 chips (8 chips on each
> side) using 64Mx8 device.
> * All high density 1GB modules are made with 16 chips (8 chips on each
> side) using 128Mx4 device.
>
> It costs memory manufacturers almost the same to produce Low Density 1GB
> modules which have 100% compatibility with all systems on the market,
> comparing to producing high density 1GB modules. So why would
> manufacturers be so foolish to produce high density 1GB modules which only
> have 10% compatibility with systems on the market? The reason is simple,
> because high density 128Mx4 devices are mainly designed for used in slower
> server chipset/segment (Registered) which are not designed for PC
> chipset/segment (Unbuffered).
>
> --
> Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8

Faustino
Sat Mar 29 18:59:00 PDT 2008

Thanks, Mike. I have 4 x 1 Gb, I've been varying the number/mix of the four
sticks in between other things in life, I'll try all permutations. Re
memtest, I don't think it's linked to the RAM, the Install file won't run and
I have been unable to run other download the last few days, sounds as if
something in Norton IS or Windows security may be blocking the running of
downloads, I can't identify any cause.

Faustino

"mike" wrote:

> Faustino wrote:
> > PS: I realised that I could download Memtest 86, but I have a problem with
> > running it - this has occurred with some other downloads, e.g. latest ATI
> > drivers, in the last 24 hours: I hit "Run" in the dialog box and the process
> > terminates (sigh).
>
> I had the same problem with the latest release of memtest86 (3.4, I think).
> Turned out was caused by bad ram.
> Much earlier version of memtest86, (1.65, I think) did run.
> I assume you've tried the obvious of running/testing it with only the
> two 512's
>
> > "Daniel J." wrote:
> >
> >> Faustino at microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support wrote:
> >>
> >>> I know that 32-bit XP has a max of about 3.2 Gb RAM. I built a
> >>> system in Aug 07 with an Asus M2N-E motherboard and 2 x 1 Gb Kingston
> >>> DDR2-800 RAM. Seven months later, the RAM had dropped in price by
> >>> 65%; I couldn't find 2 x 512 Mb, so bought another 2 Gb of Kingston.
> >>> Windows read 3.25 Gb, but I started to get a lot of crashes (I had
> >>> had Win problems before but bought the new RAM just after having my
> >>> PC sorted out). One message on error reporting referred to RAM as a
> >>> possible cause, but crashed while I was reading it.(...)
> >> Your new RAM is bad.
> >>
> >> You can check it with a software like Memtest86+
> >> (http://www.memtest86.com/) or Windows Memory Dignostic
> >> (http://oca.microsoft.com/en/mtinst.exe)
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> [ ]'s
> >>
> >> Daniel J.
> >>
>
>
> --
> Return address is VALID!
>

Daniel
Mon Mar 31 08:44:29 PDT 2008

Faustino at microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support wrote:
>
> (...)
> Re memtest, I don't think it's linked to the RAM, the Install file
> won't run and I have been unable to run other download the last few
> days, sounds as if something in Norton IS or Windows security may be
> blocking the running of downloads, I can't identify any cause.


Probably when you've downloaded memtest86, you've got a ISO file.

So you have to burn a CD with that ISO and boot your system with this
CD.

Do you know what I mean?


--
[ ]'s

Daniel J.