RAM size

Hello,
I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256 k
card.
so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size that
will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this is
the size that will work)
whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was running
before.
ANyway, the memory tests i run online ALL say I have 512k, and only 1 slot
is being used.
I tried both cards, in both slots, and each card alone, and each card with
my 256, and every time, it staes only one slot is filled and 512k.
Is this a windows error the scan is picking up.
Is there something in windows that will show me the ACTUAL ram i have and
ACTUAL htat is being used.
I may have 1 gig like windows says, but is it possible only 512 is being
used ?

marx404
Fri Jul 04 07:47:52 PDT 2008

what does your boot (post) screen show?
also, go to start, run, type cmd then mem in the DOS box, what does it show
in total contiguous memory? It should show the complete amount of memory. If
you have any shared companents like video you will need to subtract for
them. It seems odd that you were shipped different memory than what you
ordered??
I would double check that.
I use PC WIzard, it s a free program. WWW: http://www.cpuid.com it will tell
you what you need to know.
--
marx404

_________________
"Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:96FB73FF-DC21-4A7A-916D-2FDF4D180977@microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
> I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256
> k
> card.
> so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size
> that
> will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this
> is
> the size that will work)
> whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
> gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was
> running
> before.
> ANyway, the memory tests i run online ALL say I have 512k, and only 1 slot
> is being used.
> I tried both cards, in both slots, and each card alone, and each card with
> my 256, and every time, it staes only one slot is filled and 512k.
> Is this a windows error the scan is picking up.
> Is there something in windows that will show me the ACTUAL ram i have and
> ACTUAL htat is being used.
> I may have 1 gig like windows says, but is it possible only 512 is being
> used ?

Ken
Fri Jul 04 08:41:09 PDT 2008

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 07:28:02 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
> I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
> I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256 k
> card.
> so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size that
> will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this is
> the size that will work)
> whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
> gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was running
> before.


There should be no surprise there. Despite the many people who
continually repeat "the more memory the better," that's true only up
to a point. Once you have enough RAM so that the system is no longer
paging, any additional RAM does next to nothing for you. At what point
that happens depends on what apps you run, but for most people running
common business applications under Windows XP, that point is somewhere
between 256-512MB, and except for those doing something like editing
videos or large photographic images, more RAM than that is largely
wasted.

Even the 768MB you used to use was probably more than you needed.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

databaseben
Fri Jul 04 11:40:25 PDT 2008

more ram helps to
process more information
and the variables involved
are amount of memory and
processing speed.

if you have 2 -512 chips
then windows should
indicate this amount less
memory used for video.

if only one 512 is showing,
then your bios/cmos may
have a setting to enable
the slots "or" the physical
slot may be defective for
the second 512 chip, thus is the
reason why you only
see 512.

you can click start>run>
msinfo32

and see how much ram
is being reported.

another program is called
"siw" that reveals system
information as well.


--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

"Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:96FB73FF-DC21-4A7A-916D-2FDF4D180977@microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
> I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256 k
> card.
> so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size that
> will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this is
> the size that will work)
> whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
> gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was running
> before.
> ANyway, the memory tests i run online ALL say I have 512k, and only 1 slot
> is being used.
> I tried both cards, in both slots, and each card alone, and each card with
> my 256, and every time, it staes only one slot is filled and 512k.
> Is this a windows error the scan is picking up.
> Is there something in windows that will show me the ACTUAL ram i have and
> ACTUAL htat is being used.
> I may have 1 gig like windows says, but is it possible only 512 is being
> used ?

Bob
Fri Jul 04 11:57:01 PDT 2008

Hi Ken, not sure if this is the case.
Please see my new reply to Marx404 for more on this.
thanks for your reply...


"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 07:28:02 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
> > I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256 k
> > card.
> > so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size that
> > will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this is
> > the size that will work)
> > whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
> > gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was running
> > before.
>
>
> There should be no surprise there. Despite the many people who
> continually repeat "the more memory the better," that's true only up
> to a point. Once you have enough RAM so that the system is no longer
> paging, any additional RAM does next to nothing for you. At what point
> that happens depends on what apps you run, but for most people running
> common business applications under Windows XP, that point is somewhere
> between 256-512MB, and except for those doing something like editing
> videos or large photographic images, more RAM than that is largely
> wasted.
>
> Even the 768MB you used to use was probably more than you needed.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

Bob
Fri Jul 04 11:56:00 PDT 2008

Hi Marx404,

First, I bought chips on ebay, and the guy now has a ton of negative from
this series of sales, most peoples do not work, or mixed up pc2100 and pc2700
as each auction was two chips. he stated pc2700 ddr333, but mixed up chips
with the 2100's he had i guess. I have a dispute going on right now w/
paypal for this.

I have a compaq EVO N610C, crucial.com states i need pc2700 ddr333, and can
max at two 512 chips one in each slot, but kinston.com states i need pc2100
ddr266, max at 2 512 chips one in each slot, so I am not sure what I need so
i bought the higher one since they are downward compatible, so not sure if I
am maxing out with pc2100, or can get faster w/ pc2700. I cant get a straigh
answer on this. The original chip i had was a 256 pc2100 ddr266, and i
bought a 512k pc2100 ddr266, and my total 768 was working great until errors.
i did a reinstall and couldnt figure it out. afterwards i learned bad
memeory was the cause, and I tried mem scans and they saw I had two chips one
256 and one 512, when i ran them.
So I replaced the chips with two 512's as i stated. I tried all the scans
now, but state I have one slot open and only have 512, but not sure if i am
maxing out if i need the ddr333 pc2700....i dont know what to think ???
AGain the scans i did when i was running 768 were fine, that 512 chip i had
was a nanya, and my 256 is an infinty or something.

Well thank you for your reply. When I installed the chips then started it
up and i had a choice which said my computer stated there was 1024 meg and to
hit f1 to save or like f2 to ignore, or f10 to go into setup.
I chose f1 to save and everything in windows says 1024 meg, or 1 gig.

my other issues....
I can not get into the bios...this is another problem...i never could.
Compaq has this administrator password thing and i tried everything, even not
putting anything in. I looked up how to reset it or get rid of it, even
removed the battery for hours, no luck There is a website but it is allot of
technical jargon i do not understand what to do to get rid of it, plus
another site said to create a bootable floppy that will get rid of it, and i
have a floppy usb, but do not know how to get the computer to boot from this
drive.

anyways, when I right click my compuer properties says 1 gig, then control
alt delete says 1047920, and when i go to start-cmd-mem here is what
states....

655360 bytes total conventional memeory
655360 bytes available to MS-DOS
598784 largest executable program size

1048576 bytes total contiguous exteneded memory
0 bytes available contiguous extended memory
941056 bytes available XMS memory
MS-DOS resident in high memeory area

any thoughts on all this is much appreciated ?

"marx404" wrote:

> what does your boot (post) screen show?
> also, go to start, run, type cmd then mem in the DOS box, what does it show
> in total contiguous memory? It should show the complete amount of memory. If
> you have any shared companents like video you will need to subtract for
> them. It seems odd that you were shipped different memory than what you
> ordered??
> I would double check that.
> I use PC WIzard, it s a free program. WWW: http://www.cpuid.com it will tell
> you what you need to know.
> --
> marx404
>
> _________________
> "Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:96FB73FF-DC21-4A7A-916D-2FDF4D180977@microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> > I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
> > I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256
> > k
> > card.
> > so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size
> > that
> > will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this
> > is
> > the size that will work)
> > whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
> > gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was
> > running
> > before.
> > ANyway, the memory tests i run online ALL say I have 512k, and only 1 slot
> > is being used.
> > I tried both cards, in both slots, and each card alone, and each card with
> > my 256, and every time, it staes only one slot is filled and 512k.
> > Is this a windows error the scan is picking up.
> > Is there something in windows that will show me the ACTUAL ram i have and
> > ACTUAL htat is being used.
> > I may have 1 gig like windows says, but is it possible only 512 is being
> > used ?
>
>
>

Bob
Fri Jul 04 12:08:00 PDT 2008

hi db,

Please see my last reply to marx404 for more info.
At this point i do not know what is going on.

i was running 768, (512 +256) for a long time so i know both ports were
working.
This was picked up by the scans i did. it shows 256 + 512

now the scans on crucial show 512 with one slot empty only no matter what
chips or configuration i use, the chips are the same but I guess one will
only work by itself ??

Here is what it says for msinfo under system summary
but everything else in windows states I have 1 gig ?

total physical memory 512.00 MB
available physical memory 559.52 MB
Total virtual memeory 2.00 GB
Available virtual 1.96 GB

"db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. ." wrote:

> more ram helps to
> process more information
> and the variables involved
> are amount of memory and
> processing speed.
>
> if you have 2 -512 chips
> then windows should
> indicate this amount less
> memory used for video.
>
> if only one 512 is showing,
> then your bios/cmos may
> have a setting to enable
> the slots "or" the physical
> slot may be defective for
> the second 512 chip, thus is the
> reason why you only
> see 512.
>
> you can click start>run>
> msinfo32
>
> and see how much ram
> is being reported.
>
> another program is called
> "siw" that reveals system
> information as well.
>
>
> --
>
> db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
>
> "Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:96FB73FF-DC21-4A7A-916D-2FDF4D180977@microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> > I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
> > I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256 k
> > card.
> > so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size that
> > will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this is
> > the size that will work)
> > whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
> > gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was running
> > before.
> > ANyway, the memory tests i run online ALL say I have 512k, and only 1 slot
> > is being used.
> > I tried both cards, in both slots, and each card alone, and each card with
> > my 256, and every time, it staes only one slot is filled and 512k.
> > Is this a windows error the scan is picking up.
> > Is there something in windows that will show me the ACTUAL ram i have and
> > ACTUAL htat is being used.
> > I may have 1 gig like windows says, but is it possible only 512 is being
> > used ?
>
>

Ken
Fri Jul 04 12:35:25 PDT 2008

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:57:01 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Hi Ken, not sure if this is the case.
> Please see my new reply to Marx404 for more on this.
> thanks for your reply...


You're welcome, but I'll repeat that 1GB is overkill for the great
majority of people running XP. Unless you run particularly memory
hungry applications (and I don't see anything in your reply to Marx404
that suggests that you are), there's no reason to expect that that
much memory would increase your performance.



> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 07:28:02 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > > I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
> > > I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256 k
> > > card.
> > > so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size that
> > > will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this is
> > > the size that will work)
> > > whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
> > > gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was running
> > > before.
> >
> >
> > There should be no surprise there. Despite the many people who
> > continually repeat "the more memory the better," that's true only up
> > to a point. Once you have enough RAM so that the system is no longer
> > paging, any additional RAM does next to nothing for you. At what point
> > that happens depends on what apps you run, but for most people running
> > common business applications under Windows XP, that point is somewhere
> > between 256-512MB, and except for those doing something like editing
> > videos or large photographic images, more RAM than that is largely
> > wasted.
> >
> > Even the 768MB you used to use was probably more than you needed.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> >

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Bob
Fri Jul 04 13:12:01 PDT 2008

Ken,

I run accounting software, microsoft office, and starship among other
programs, from my laptop, My computer bogs down at 256, and when I am logged
onto servers the accounting software lagged with 512, so I upgraded to 768
which was sufficiant.

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:57:01 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ken, not sure if this is the case.
> > Please see my new reply to Marx404 for more on this.
> > thanks for your reply...
>
>
> You're welcome, but I'll repeat that 1GB is overkill for the great
> majority of people running XP. Unless you run particularly memory
> hungry applications (and I don't see anything in your reply to Marx404
> that suggests that you are), there's no reason to expect that that
> much memory would increase your performance.
>
>
>
> > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 07:28:02 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > > I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
> > > > I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256 k
> > > > card.
> > > > so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size that
> > > > will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this is
> > > > the size that will work)
> > > > whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
> > > > gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was running
> > > > before.
> > >
> > >
> > > There should be no surprise there. Despite the many people who
> > > continually repeat "the more memory the better," that's true only up
> > > to a point. Once you have enough RAM so that the system is no longer
> > > paging, any additional RAM does next to nothing for you. At what point
> > > that happens depends on what apps you run, but for most people running
> > > common business applications under Windows XP, that point is somewhere
> > > between 256-512MB, and except for those doing something like editing
> > > videos or large photographic images, more RAM than that is largely
> > > wasted.
> > >
> > > Even the 768MB you used to use was probably more than you needed.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> > >
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

Ken
Fri Jul 04 14:22:51 PDT 2008

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:12:01 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Ken,
>
> I run accounting software, microsoft office, and starship


Sorry, I don't know what "Starship" is. Is that a game?


> among other
> programs, from my laptop, My computer bogs down at 256, and when I am logged
> onto servers the accounting software lagged with 512, so I upgraded to 768
> which was sufficiant.


OK. If adding the memory worked for you, then I can't argue with that.
Certainly we don't all have the same needs.

But you say that 768MB was sufficient, and my comment was directed at
your statement that "Windows says I am running 1 gig like normal, but
the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was running before." One
should not necessarily expect that 1GB will always be faster than
768MB, and for the great majority of those running XP, it is not.


>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:57:01 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ken, not sure if this is the case.
> > > Please see my new reply to Marx404 for more on this.
> > > thanks for your reply...
> >
> >
> > You're welcome, but I'll repeat that 1GB is overkill for the great
> > majority of people running XP. Unless you run particularly memory
> > hungry applications (and I don't see anything in your reply to Marx404
> > that suggests that you are), there's no reason to expect that that
> > much memory would increase your performance.
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 07:28:02 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
> > > > > I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256 k
> > > > > card.
> > > > > so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size that
> > > > > will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this is
> > > > > the size that will work)
> > > > > whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
> > > > > gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was running
> > > > > before.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There should be no surprise there. Despite the many people who
> > > > continually repeat "the more memory the better," that's true only up
> > > > to a point. Once you have enough RAM so that the system is no longer
> > > > paging, any additional RAM does next to nothing for you. At what point
> > > > that happens depends on what apps you run, but for most people running
> > > > common business applications under Windows XP, that point is somewhere
> > > > between 256-512MB, and except for those doing something like editing
> > > > videos or large photographic images, more RAM than that is largely
> > > > wasted.
> > > >
> > > > Even the 768MB you used to use was probably more than you needed.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > > > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> >

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Bob
Fri Jul 04 14:31:01 PDT 2008

Ken, Starship is a shipping program similiar to UPS Worldship. It is tied
into the accounting software.

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:12:01 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ken,
> >
> > I run accounting software, microsoft office, and starship
>
>
> Sorry, I don't know what "Starship" is. Is that a game?
>
>
> > among other
> > programs, from my laptop, My computer bogs down at 256, and when I am logged
> > onto servers the accounting software lagged with 512, so I upgraded to 768
> > which was sufficiant.
>
>
> OK. If adding the memory worked for you, then I can't argue with that.
> Certainly we don't all have the same needs.
>
> But you say that 768MB was sufficient, and my comment was directed at
> your statement that "Windows says I am running 1 gig like normal, but
> the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was running before." One
> should not necessarily expect that 1GB will always be faster than
> 768MB, and for the great majority of those running XP, it is not.
>
>
> >
> > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:57:01 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ken, not sure if this is the case.
> > > > Please see my new reply to Marx404 for more on this.
> > > > thanks for your reply...
> > >
> > >
> > > You're welcome, but I'll repeat that 1GB is overkill for the great
> > > majority of people running XP. Unless you run particularly memory
> > > hungry applications (and I don't see anything in your reply to Marx404
> > > that suggests that you are), there's no reason to expect that that
> > > much memory would increase your performance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 07:28:02 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
> > > > > > I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256 k
> > > > > > card.
> > > > > > so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size that
> > > > > > will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this is
> > > > > > the size that will work)
> > > > > > whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
> > > > > > gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was running
> > > > > > before.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There should be no surprise there. Despite the many people who
> > > > > continually repeat "the more memory the better," that's true only up
> > > > > to a point. Once you have enough RAM so that the system is no longer
> > > > > paging, any additional RAM does next to nothing for you. At what point
> > > > > that happens depends on what apps you run, but for most people running
> > > > > common business applications under Windows XP, that point is somewhere
> > > > > between 256-512MB, and except for those doing something like editing
> > > > > videos or large photographic images, more RAM than that is largely
> > > > > wasted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even the 768MB you used to use was probably more than you needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > > > > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> > >
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

Bob
Fri Jul 04 14:34:01 PDT 2008

Ken,

thanks again for the reply, 768 was fine and it showed I had 768
This shows I have 512, and i know I have 1 gig there.
It does seem slower than the 768 I had, so I basically need to know what is
going on. How much ram do I have in there and why is only half showing up ?

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:12:01 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ken,
> >
> > I run accounting software, microsoft office, and starship
>
>
> Sorry, I don't know what "Starship" is. Is that a game?
>
>
> > among other
> > programs, from my laptop, My computer bogs down at 256, and when I am logged
> > onto servers the accounting software lagged with 512, so I upgraded to 768
> > which was sufficiant.
>
>
> OK. If adding the memory worked for you, then I can't argue with that.
> Certainly we don't all have the same needs.
>
> But you say that 768MB was sufficient, and my comment was directed at
> your statement that "Windows says I am running 1 gig like normal, but
> the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was running before." One
> should not necessarily expect that 1GB will always be faster than
> 768MB, and for the great majority of those running XP, it is not.
>
>
> >
> > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:57:01 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ken, not sure if this is the case.
> > > > Please see my new reply to Marx404 for more on this.
> > > > thanks for your reply...
> > >
> > >
> > > You're welcome, but I'll repeat that 1GB is overkill for the great
> > > majority of people running XP. Unless you run particularly memory
> > > hungry applications (and I don't see anything in your reply to Marx404
> > > that suggests that you are), there's no reason to expect that that
> > > much memory would increase your performance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 07:28:02 -0700, Bob <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
> > > > > > I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256 k
> > > > > > card.
> > > > > > so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size that
> > > > > > will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this is
> > > > > > the size that will work)
> > > > > > whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
> > > > > > gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was running
> > > > > > before.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There should be no surprise there. Despite the many people who
> > > > > continually repeat "the more memory the better," that's true only up
> > > > > to a point. Once you have enough RAM so that the system is no longer
> > > > > paging, any additional RAM does next to nothing for you. At what point
> > > > > that happens depends on what apps you run, but for most people running
> > > > > common business applications under Windows XP, that point is somewhere
> > > > > between 256-512MB, and except for those doing something like editing
> > > > > videos or large photographic images, more RAM than that is largely
> > > > > wasted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even the 768MB you used to use was probably more than you needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > > > > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> > >
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

databaseben
Fri Jul 04 14:49:47 PDT 2008

ok.

then the 512 that is seen
by windows at this time
is what you have to go
with regardless of what
the other programs or
scans are saying.

therefore you should remove
the other chip from your
system and return it for credit.

----------------

now since you are assured
that you "have" 512 installed
you may want to re run your
scans or whatever else you are
using to benchmark your
memory.

keep-in-mind that with
a 512 meg ram chip installed
you "know" that your scans
cannot report that you have
more because it is simply and
physically impossible to have
more than 512.

however, faulty programs
can give you bogus info.

--------------

another thing to keep-in-mind
is that the maker of your mother
board is the "authority" on what
memory you need; "regardless"
of what the memory makers state.

so what you need to do is to
double check your motherboards
homesite to find out the "exact"
specifications for your motherboard's
memory configuration and type.

you will likely find that the
512 you have installed at this
time and what is being reported
by windows is within the
specifications per your mother
board maker.

---------------

in the old days anyone could mix
and match memory. however, now
a days there are motherboards
that do not allow deviations.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

"Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D3BE788B-EE6F-4BAD-B539-94F131693F97@microsoft.com...
> hi db,
>
> Please see my last reply to marx404 for more info.
> At this point i do not know what is going on.
>
> i was running 768, (512 +256) for a long time so i know both ports were
> working.
> This was picked up by the scans i did. it shows 256 + 512
>
> now the scans on crucial show 512 with one slot empty only no matter what
> chips or configuration i use, the chips are the same but I guess one will
> only work by itself ??
>
> Here is what it says for msinfo under system summary
> but everything else in windows states I have 1 gig ?
>
> total physical memory 512.00 MB
> available physical memory 559.52 MB
> Total virtual memeory 2.00 GB
> Available virtual 1.96 GB
>
> "db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. ." wrote:
>
>> more ram helps to
>> process more information
>> and the variables involved
>> are amount of memory and
>> processing speed.
>>
>> if you have 2 -512 chips
>> then windows should
>> indicate this amount less
>> memory used for video.
>>
>> if only one 512 is showing,
>> then your bios/cmos may
>> have a setting to enable
>> the slots "or" the physical
>> slot may be defective for
>> the second 512 chip, thus is the
>> reason why you only
>> see 512.
>>
>> you can click start>run>
>> msinfo32
>>
>> and see how much ram
>> is being reported.
>>
>> another program is called
>> "siw" that reveals system
>> information as well.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
>>
>> "Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:96FB73FF-DC21-4A7A-916D-2FDF4D180977@microsoft.com...
>> > Hello,
>> > I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
>> > I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256 k
>> > card.
>> > so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size
>> > that
>> > will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this
>> > is
>> > the size that will work)
>> > whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
>> > gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was
>> > running
>> > before.
>> > ANyway, the memory tests i run online ALL say I have 512k, and only 1 slot
>> > is being used.
>> > I tried both cards, in both slots, and each card alone, and each card with
>> > my 256, and every time, it staes only one slot is filled and 512k.
>> > Is this a windows error the scan is picking up.
>> > Is there something in windows that will show me the ACTUAL ram i have and
>> > ACTUAL htat is being used.
>> > I may have 1 gig like windows says, but is it possible only 512 is being
>> > used ?
>>
>>

Daave
Fri Jul 04 14:59:15 PDT 2008

"Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19480D30-67CF-420D-A0BF-F98411143AA9@microsoft.com...

> thanks again for the reply, 768 was fine and it showed I had 768
> This shows I have 512, and i know I have 1 gig there.
> It does seem slower than the 768 I had, so I basically need to know
> what is
> going on. How much ram do I have in there and why is only half
> showing up ?

Either one of your modules isn't seated properly or is defective. My
guess is that it's the latter, considering your description of the
seller. If you want to test the module, use something like Memtest86+ or
the Windows Memory Diagnostic:

http://www.memtest.org/

http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp

Lil'
Sat Jul 05 05:06:19 PDT 2008

"Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:96FB73FF-DC21-4A7A-916D-2FDF4D180977@microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
> I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256
> k
> card.
> so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size
> that
> will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this
> is
> the size that will work)
> whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
> gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was
> running
> before.
> ANyway, the memory tests i run online ALL say I have 512k, and only 1 slot

Is one of the online test at crucial.com?

> is being used.
> I tried both cards, in both slots, and each card alone, and each card with
> my 256, and every time, it staes only one slot is filled and 512k.

Why did you keep the 256K module?
Why is it in there?

> Is this a windows error the scan is picking up.
> Is there something in windows that will show me the ACTUAL ram i have and
> ACTUAL htat is being used.
> I may have 1 gig like windows says, but is it possible only 512 is being
> used ?

Pull the 256K module, and try again. Check "bank" allotments for each RAM
slot as appropriate to your motherboard.
--
Dave

New drilling sites for oil offshore and other
sensitive places. Question is, will that oil
go here in the U.S., or someplace else for sale?

Bob
Sat Jul 05 12:48:00 PDT 2008

Thanks Dave,

I tried Memtest and it said total RAM was 1024
Cashe 1 8K ?
Cashe 2 512m ?

Anyway, Crucial.com says 1 512 stick, and at startup and windows system
properties shows 1 gig.
But windows system info shows total physcial memory 512.00MB
using start-run-(msinfo32)

I am confused....


"Daave" wrote:

> "Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:19480D30-67CF-420D-A0BF-F98411143AA9@microsoft.com...
>
> > thanks again for the reply, 768 was fine and it showed I had 768
> > This shows I have 512, and i know I have 1 gig there.
> > It does seem slower than the 768 I had, so I basically need to know
> > what is
> > going on. How much ram do I have in there and why is only half
> > showing up ?
>
> Either one of your modules isn't seated properly or is defective. My
> guess is that it's the latter, considering your description of the
> seller. If you want to test the module, use something like Memtest86+ or
> the Windows Memory Diagnostic:
>
> http://www.memtest.org/
>
> http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp
>
>
>

Bob
Sat Jul 05 12:54:01 PDT 2008

Hi Dave,

I tried Memtest and it said total RAM was 1024
Cashe 1 8K ?
Cashe 2 512m ?

Anyway, Crucial.com says 1 512 stick, and at startup and windows system
properties shows 1 gig.
But windows system info shows total physcial memory 512.00MB
using start-run-(msinfo32)

I am confused....

As far as the 256, it is out. I tried each of the 3 sticks with another to
see what comes up for each test.
The only ones that werea ccurate was the 256 alone, and one 512 stick alone.
When the other 512 stick or 256 stick is in with a 512, it still only shows
512, not 768 or 1024.

Now my 512 nanyo that died, I ran it with the 256 stick, and tests showed
768, and windows showed 768, and bios showed 768.

But now only 512 for the tests...and the windows system ino....when i right
click properties on my computer shows 1 gig and startup shows 1 gig, and
memetest shows 1 gig ...I think...

im confused on this more...How do I check bank allotments.....If it is in
Bios Im locked out, for some reason admin password do not now, and it is not
blank...i tried a website on here to reset it but didnt work. But when I
amke a change in RAM, the startup screen tells me what it found and asks f1
to save f2 to ignore, so that is how I knew the bios was correct when stared
1024
"Lil' Dave" wrote:

> "Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:96FB73FF-DC21-4A7A-916D-2FDF4D180977@microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> > I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen etc.
> > I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the 256
> > k
> > card.
> > so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size
> > that
> > will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says this
> > is
> > the size that will work)
> > whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am running 1
> > gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was
> > running
> > before.
> > ANyway, the memory tests i run online ALL say I have 512k, and only 1 slot
>
> Is one of the online test at crucial.com?
>
> > is being used.
> > I tried both cards, in both slots, and each card alone, and each card with
> > my 256, and every time, it staes only one slot is filled and 512k.
>
> Why did you keep the 256K module?
> Why is it in there?
>
> > Is this a windows error the scan is picking up.
> > Is there something in windows that will show me the ACTUAL ram i have and
> > ACTUAL htat is being used.
> > I may have 1 gig like windows says, but is it possible only 512 is being
> > used ?
>
> Pull the 256K module, and try again. Check "bank" allotments for each RAM
> slot as appropriate to your motherboard.
> --
> Dave
>
> New drilling sites for oil offshore and other
> sensitive places. Question is, will that oil
> go here in the U.S., or someplace else for sale?
>
>
>

Lil'
Sun Jul 06 07:41:04 PDT 2008

Most motherboards share a bank across two RAM slots. That can be a problem,
in some cases, when using a different size RAM module sharing the same bank.
And, compounds differential optimum timing for a single RAM module vs
multiple RAM modules across bank shared RAM slots.

--
Dave

New drilling sites for oil offshore and other
sensitive places. Question is, will that oil
go here in the U.S., or someplace else for sale?
"Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9EDEC0F0-BAF6-4ED6-9B6E-F372A748DA37@microsoft.com...
> Hi Dave,
>
> I tried Memtest and it said total RAM was 1024
> Cashe 1 8K ?
> Cashe 2 512m ?
>
> Anyway, Crucial.com says 1 512 stick, and at startup and windows system
> properties shows 1 gig.
> But windows system info shows total physcial memory 512.00MB
> using start-run-(msinfo32)
>
> I am confused....
>
> As far as the 256, it is out. I tried each of the 3 sticks with another
> to
> see what comes up for each test.
> The only ones that werea ccurate was the 256 alone, and one 512 stick
> alone.
> When the other 512 stick or 256 stick is in with a 512, it still only
> shows
> 512, not 768 or 1024.
>
> Now my 512 nanyo that died, I ran it with the 256 stick, and tests showed
> 768, and windows showed 768, and bios showed 768.
>
> But now only 512 for the tests...and the windows system ino....when i
> right
> click properties on my computer shows 1 gig and startup shows 1 gig, and
> memetest shows 1 gig ...I think...
>
> im confused on this more...How do I check bank allotments.....If it is in
> Bios Im locked out, for some reason admin password do not now, and it is
> not
> blank...i tried a website on here to reset it but didnt work. But when I
> amke a change in RAM, the startup screen tells me what it found and asks
> f1
> to save f2 to ignore, so that is how I knew the bios was correct when
> stared
> 1024
> "Lil' Dave" wrote:
>
>> "Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:96FB73FF-DC21-4A7A-916D-2FDF4D180977@microsoft.com...
>> > Hello,
>> > I kept getting these errors in Windows xp, rebooting and blue screen
>> > etc.
>> > I found out my 512k memory card was bad, so i was only left with the
>> > 256
>> > k
>> > card.
>> > so i bought 2 kingston pc2700 ddr333 (crucial.com says this is the size
>> > that
>> > will work), but actually received 2 pc2100 ddr266 (kingston.com says
>> > this
>> > is
>> > the size that will work)
>> > whatver the case may e they should both work. Windows says I am
>> > running 1
>> > gig like normal, but the speed doesnt seem faster than the 768 i was
>> > running
>> > before.
>> > ANyway, the memory tests i run online ALL say I have 512k, and only 1
>> > slot
>>
>> Is one of the online test at crucial.com?
>>
>> > is being used.
>> > I tried both cards, in both slots, and each card alone, and each card
>> > with
>> > my 256, and every time, it staes only one slot is filled and 512k.
>>
>> Why did you keep the 256K module?
>> Why is it in there?
>>
>> > Is this a windows error the scan is picking up.
>> > Is there something in windows that will show me the ACTUAL ram i have
>> > and
>> > ACTUAL htat is being used.
>> > I may have 1 gig like windows says, but is it possible only 512 is
>> > being
>> > used ?
>>
>> Pull the 256K module, and try again. Check "bank" allotments for each
>> RAM
>> slot as appropriate to your motherboard.
>> --
>> Dave
>>
>> New drilling sites for oil offshore and other
>> sensitive places. Question is, will that oil
>> go here in the U.S., or someplace else for sale?
>>
>>
>>

Daave
Sun Jul 06 08:25:36 PDT 2008


"Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DA378BE-9394-4A8B-95DF-DC9770A09941@microsoft.com...
> Thanks Dave,
>
> I tried Memtest and it said total RAM was 1024
> Cashe 1 8K ?
> Cashe 2 512m ?
>
> Anyway, Crucial.com says 1 512 stick, and at startup and windows
> system
> properties shows 1 gig.
> But windows system info shows total physcial memory 512.00MB
> using start-run-(msinfo32)
>