How to add memory to your PC

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

formatting link

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".

Cheers Robin

Reply to
robin.pain
Loading thread data ...

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.

Rene

--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net
Reply to
Rene Tschaggelar

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

--
Best Regards,
Mike
Reply to
Active8

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

Reply to
robin.pain

This is snipped-for-privacy@tesco.net 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.

[]s
--
Chaos Master®, posting from Canoas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil - 29.55° S 
/ 51.11° W / GMT-2h / 15m . 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Chaos Master

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

Graham

Reply to
Pooh Bear

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.

--
Best Regards,
Mike
Reply to
Active8

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!

Reply to
Dejan Uzelac

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 sometime.

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

--
Best Regards,
Mike
Reply to
Active8

< snip >

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 controllers.

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

Graham

Reply to
Pooh Bear

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 RAM.

[1] Actually, it was a MS-DOS limitation in HIMEM.SYS and EMM386.EXE. []s
--
Chaos Master®, posting from Canoas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil - 29.55° S 
/ 51.11° W / GMT-2h / 15m . 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Chaos Master

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.

RL

Reply to
legg

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.

Reply to
TCS

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?
--
  Keith
Reply to
Keith Williams

That's the point. Without needing DMA there is no limitation.

Sure.

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.

--
  Keith
Reply to
Keith Williams

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.

Reply to
TCS

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).

--
  Keith
Reply to
Keith Williams

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.