Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

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?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:

>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.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote in message
news:Xns95931401AB0CEwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48...
> "MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:
>
>>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

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.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:
>"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote in message
>> "MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:

>>>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.
>
>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.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote in message
news:vG0hd.109906$Ot3.68952@twister.nyc.rr.com...

"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

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote in message
news:tL%gd.109863$Ot3.59278@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> 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

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:57:56 GMT There I was minding my own business
and then John Doe <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote :

>"MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:
>
>>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.

Bollocks!!!!!
Another idiot post.



--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
remove obvious to reply
email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
Free original songs to download and,"BURN" )
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:38:17 GMT There I was minding my own business
and then "MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote :

>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 shep@obviouspartyheld.de
Free original songs to download and,"BURN" )
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Troll.

Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>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¸ <nospam@nospam.net>
>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: <hivao05q81aijqgdg3a2rbfotobrjc3lth@4ax.com>
>References: <tL%gd.109863$Ot3.59278@twister.nyc.rr.com> <Xns95931401AB0CEwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48>
>Reply-To: nospam@nospam.net
>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
>
>On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:57:56 GMT There I was minding my own business
>and then John Doe <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote :
>
>>"MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>
>Bollocks!!!!!
>Another idiot post.
>
>
>
>--
>Free Windows/PC help,
>http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
>remove obvious to reply
>email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
>Free original songs to download and,"BURN" )
>http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:37:26 GMT There I was minding my own business
and then John Doe <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote :

>Troll.

You know so little.



--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
remove obvious to reply
email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
Free original songs to download and,"BURN" )
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe wrote:

> 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.

>
> Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>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¸ <nospam@nospam.net>
>>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: <hivao05q81aijqgdg3a2rbfotobrjc3lth@4ax.com>
>>References: <tL%gd.109863$Ot3.59278@twister.nyc.rr.com> <Xns95931401AB0CEwisdomfolly@151.164.30.48>
>>Reply-To: nospam@nospam.net
>>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
>>
>>On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:57:56 GMT There I was minding my own business
>>and then John Doe <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote :
>>
>>
>>>"MustKillMoe-Wheee!" <f@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Bollocks!!!!!
>>Another idiot post.
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Free Windows/PC help,
>>http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
>>remove obvious to reply
>>email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
>>Free original songs to download and,"BURN" )
>>http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

>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.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe wrote:

> David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>
>>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.

'Slightly off' how?

http://support.microsoft.com/defau [...] -us;253912

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

http://support.microsoft.com/defau [...] -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.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
>John Doe wrote:
>> David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

>>>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.
>
>'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.

>> 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.

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.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe wrote:

> David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>>John Doe wrote:
>>
>>>David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>'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.

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.

>
>
>>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.

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.


>>>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.
>
>
> 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.