Connect with us

How to add memory to your PC

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by [email protected], Feb 10, 2005.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Guest

    Plan a) Add the extra memory; continue normal use.
    Plan b) Add the extra memory and test it with

    I just tried Plan a)

    It cost me a week of frustration and an XP clean install (because I
    did not know about plan c) )

    c) Start / Run / msconfg / General(tab) / "system restore".

  2. More experienced (meaning having waisted too much time)
    users buy a machine with a final memory configuration
    and never open the machine for upgrades/improvements.
    Juist add the week's worth of time and nerves to the
    RAM configuration of the next machine.

  3. Chaos Master

    Chaos Master Guest

    This is for forever:
    I didn't knew that adding memory could cause those effects...

    I have upgraded from 64 to 128MB (4 x 32MB EDO, IIRC - this was a while
    ago and I can't open the case right now) - no problems happened to my
    Windows 98 installation.

    Chaos Master®, posting from Canoas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil - 29.55° S
    / 51.11° W / GMT-2h / 15m .

    "People told me I can't dress like a fairy.
    I say, I'm in a rock band and I can do what the hell I want!"
    -- Amy Lee

    (My e-mail address isn't read. Please reply to the group!)
  4. Active8

    Active8 Guest

    Winders 9x had a 64 MB limit built into the OS. It never saw the new
  5. Dejan Uzelac

    Dejan Uzelac Guest

    I was never aware of such complications coz of RAM upgrades...

    Done it plenty of times.. No problems at all..

    Only issue that might come up is when playing with timings in the BIOS... in
    the worst case bios wont boot and have to clear the settings... Thats still
    only 15sec extra work!

  6. Guest

    I used to repair a thing called the BBC Micro in the early 1980s. I
    did this for about three years, about 5 to 10 of them per day.

    Memory failure was extremely rare, even then (it used 16K x 1 bit
    DRAM, 32 of them), maybe one machine in a hundred.

    If one BBC machine per fifty failed in the first two years, then that
    made memory failure 1 chance in 10000 per per year.

    Only a few years earlier memory failure, RAM and ROM, was very common.

    Nowdays I expected perfection more or less so when one of my brand new
    2.5V 184pin 256MByte cards (I lovingly caressed chassis,
    anti-static-bag while removing and inserting RAM the while)I never
    expected failure at all.

    (Evidently the manufacture does no testing because that would scuff
    the gold edge connectors.)

    Cheers Robin
  7. Pooh Bear

    Pooh Bear Guest

    Whre did you get such a daft idea as that ?

    Using Cacheman I get the following report under win 98SE

    Total memory 220 M
    Usage 148.8 M
    Free 707.M

    Win 98 won't be upset by adding memory anyway.

    Only XP has issues with playing with hardware. Should be fixable by asking
    microsnot for a new license number

  8. Active8

    Active8 Guest

    Maybe I heard that it just won't allocate more than 64 MB per
    process. It was discussed here before and I don't remember it all.
    Try to make it use it.
  9. Pooh Bear

    Pooh Bear Guest

    Win 98 has trouble talking to more than 512 M IIRC.

    I recall a 64M adressing space limit for old ISA expansion cards like SCSI

    It happily uses it up quite easily. See above. That was 70.7M free btw - lol !

  10. legg

    legg Guest

    Only trouble I've ever had with new memory in W98 or W2K was with
    socketry connections on a new MB. Needed scuffing to make contact.

  11. Active8

    Active8 Guest

    DOS programs had a limit, too. And the whole OS was loaded in *just
    so*, as well as the slots and all. They left room for TSRs somwhere
    and a way to use himem and cousins to optimize the whole thing in
    the startup files. All programs loaded at addr 0x00 or 0x100
    depending on whether they were sys, com, or exe. It worked.
    Yeah, but that doesn't show how much each process is using like task
    mgr does.

    I got the info from an experienced coder. I'll drop in on him

    Anyone out there running 9x that can code a 128 MB malloc() and fill
    it up?
  12. Chaos Master

    Chaos Master Guest

    This is Active8 for forever:
    Maybe you're thinking about Windows 3.11 [1] or 95?

    I have a friend with 98SE and that uses a 750MHz AMD Duron with 384MB

    [1] Actually, it was a MS-DOS limitation in HIMEM.SYS and EMM386.EXE.

    Chaos Master®, posting from Canoas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil - 29.55° S
    / 51.11° W / GMT-2h / 15m .

    "People told me I can't dress like a fairy.
    I say, I'm in a rock band and I can do what the hell I want!"
    -- Amy Lee

    (My e-mail address isn't read. Please reply to the group!)
  13. IIRC, there is a disk-cache issue in Win9x that creeps in at 512MB.
    There is a registry fix for this, I believe.
    ISA cards can't address more than 16MB (only 24 address bits). Many
    chipsets used with early socket-7 processors couldn't cache more than
    64MB. More memory would actually slow the system down due to the way
    Win9x allocates memory. Perhaps that's the "64MB limit" you remember?
  14. TCS

    TCS Guest

    That's only a problem if you are doing DMA from an ISA card. The OS would
    have to map it to the lower address space and then later copy it to its
    final destination. However, how many people run a ISA disk controller
    any more? Usually the only ISA cards you ever see floating around are
    modems and sound cards. On ancient systems with an ISA disk controller
    their memory capacity doesn't allow for more than 64M.
  15. >, The-Central-
    That's the point. Without needing DMA there is no limitation.
    No one. It's dead, Jim.
    That makes no sense. If you're double buffering there is no "64MB
    limit". The buffer can be anywhere in memory since the processor is
    moving the data from under the 16MB line to above.
  16. TCS

    TCS Guest

    I meant a practical limit.

    The last systems with ISA disk controlers where 486s when memory cost
    $100 for 4M of memory. Motherboards maxed out at 64M.
  17. >, The-Central-
    That's not an ISA nor SCSI memory limit then. It's a $$ limit or
    perhaps a memory slot limit. I've seen ISA SCSI cards in Pentia (PCI)
    boards, as well. Typically they were used for scanners and stuff
    though and I don't recall if they were bus-masters (likely not).
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day