one memory stick v. two

[phish]

I'm building a new PC. Crucial is out-of-stock on of the 256MB memory that I need. I intended to buy two of them. Does two modules of 256MB ram opperate identically as one of 512MB module? Or, should I wait to install two of 256MB?

[YODA74]

YES, but what windows are you running? W/me doesn't funtion well with that much and on some 98. If Crucial don't have it then use kingstone just as good.Or try Mushkin The best

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


PUSH TO TEST. RELEASE TO DETONATE.
[Closed captioned for the thinking impaired.]

[malcore]

Originally posted by YODA74:
YES, but what windows are you running? W/me doesn't funtion well with that much and on some 98. If Crucial don't have it then use kingstone just as good.Or try Mushkin The best



I'm running 512 Mb Samsung PC 2700 on Windows Me. NO, I mean absolutely NO worries. Runs extremely smoothly.

Memory is a matter of taste and experience. One guy likes this brand ,another likes that brand. Just make sure it's not overclocked RAM. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Nooyawkah]

I built 2 systems using Crucial RAM. The 1st used 1 512 stick and the 2nd used 2 256 sticks (which came out to a lot less money for some reason). The both seem to perform the same. If you have 4 slots for RAM for future expansion, 2 256s may be a better deal.

------------------
The journey is more important than the destination.

[YODA74]

WinME can't handle more than 512 megs of memory
By: Andrew Thomas
Posted: 24/11/2000 at 09:51 GMT


Like world+dog, we were obviously looking for something to beat up on Intel with following the launch of the P4. Unlike most of the planet, we reckoned that an old BIOS shipped with a couple of old mobos wasn't much of a story.

We much preferred a glitch we'd discovered a couple of weeks ago that appeared to be a rerun of the Caminogate RDRAM cockup. And, unlike some folk, we actually did some research before loosing the hounds on Chipzilla.

Our sample P4 and D850GB mobo, supplied with Windows ME installed, ran perfectly happily with the 256MB of RDRAM shipped to us. It also ran perfectly happily with the 512MB of RDRAM that Kingston sent us. Only when we tried to run both together did we hit problems.

No matter which configurations we tried, the system would not run with 768MB of memory, returning the error message: "There is not enough memory available to run this program. Quit one or more programs, and then try again."

768MB "not enough"? Blimey.

At first we considered the obvious options - unsupported RIMMs, mixing ECC and non-ECC memory, phases of the moon and so forth. This was tantalisingly familiar territory: an Intel RDRAM mobo that didn't work properly with fully-populated RIMM slots.

But the answer turned out to be far more mundane: Windows ME simply can't cope with more than 512MB of memory.

And neither can any other Win9x variant.

And it's a 'feature'. It transpires that Win ME, Win98 and Win95 cannot deal with main memory sizes in excess of 512MB. The Microsoft Knowledgebase entries on the subject (dating back a few short weeks) contain the following fascinating facts:

"The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.

"On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine).

"This problem may occur more readily with Advanced Graphics Port (AGP) video adapters because the AGP aperture is also mapped to addresses in the system arena. For example, if Vcache is using a maximum cache size of 800MB and an AGP video adapter has a 128MB aperture mapped, there is very little address space remaining for the other system code and data that must occupy this range of virtual addresses."

And here are the three suggested workarounds:

"1. Physically remove any memory in excess of 512MB [!]

"2. Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512MB or less.

"3. Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512MB (524,288 KB) or less."

And the unspoken fourth solution: upgrade to Windows 2000.

Knowledgebase also admits that the addressing restriction has been identified as a failing in Windows. Installing Win2K obviated the problem. All 768MB ran faultlessly.

So if you think that adding extra memory will make your Win 9x system run faster, the answer is: it will, provided you don't exceed 512MB. With today's systems more than capable of exceeding this size, and with wallets capacious enough to purchase more than 512MB of RDRAM, Win 9X/ME suddenly appears rather passé.

Scary thought: how much memory will Office 2001 require? ®


Yes you can run Up to 512mb But if you go over that you WILL have problems


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


PUSH TO TEST. RELEASE TO DETONATE.
[Closed captioned for the thinking impaired.]

[joea64]

I have 512MB in my own system, divided between two 256MB DIMM sticks. I would recommend, no matter what brand of memory you get, that you split it up into two sticks (or three or even four, depending on how many RAM slots you have). That way, if one stick should fail, you will have a second one available to continue to run your system with plenty of RAM until you can get a replacement, and you will also be able to run tests to isolate the bad stick so you can pull it and keep the good one.

If you are running Win9x (or ME), I STRONGLY advise you to set up your file cache (using MinFileCache= and MaxFileCache=) in system.ini to a fixed size so that Windows doesn't attempt to seize all the RAM for cache, as described in the article Yoda posted. You can set it to any amount you like, but many authorities recommend the optimal size as being 1/8 to 1/4 of total system RAM. In my own case, with 512MB, I have my file cache set to a fixed size of 64MB. The freeware utility program cacheman (run a search for it on Google or another search engine) will set up the file cache for you to whatever size you select, and will also help you with many, many other memory-related settings to optimize your machine. It even provides over half-a-dozen different system "profiles" that you can select and reboot to depending on what role you want to use your computer in (server, games box, multimedia, etc.).

-Joe-

------------------
Alternate email: joea64@yahoo.com

[Anubis]

I ran my system on 2/256M sticks and a 128M stick on Win98 w/AGP flawlessly. Never had memory issues, ran without a problem. I let Windows handle all the memory, never changed the system.ini and it worked great. Only when my MOBO was going south did problems start.

------------------
I can feel the wheel, but I can't steer
When my thoughts become my biggest fear
Ah, what's the difference, I'll die
In this sick world of mine

[saphalline]

Originally posted by phish:

I'm building a new PC. Crucial is out-of-stock on of the 256MB memory that I need. I intended to buy two of them. Does two modules of 256MB ram opperate identically as one of 512MB module? Or, should I wait to install two of 256MB?

In addition to what was said above, if you're talking about PC66/100/133 SDRAM, then no, sometimes older mobos can't recognize a single 512MB module. However, since you're building a new PC, it may(?) be safe to say that you're getting DDR RAM. Yes, as long as the RAM works (highly likely with Crucial), a single 512MB module will work just as well as two 256MB modules.

I would even go so far as to say it may be preferable from an upgrade point of view. For instance, most DDR mobos have 3 RAM slots for 3GB total (some have 4), and Win 2k/XP have a max addressable RAM of 4GB. So, if you use up two slots now with only 512MB total, even if you stick in a single 1GB RAM module in the future, you're stuck at 1.5GB of RAM unless you want to toss one of those 256MB modules. But, if you start with just one module of 512MB, then you can in the future put two 1GB modules in for a total of 2.5GB of RAM. That's a heck of a lot closer to the 3GB max for the mobo!

Of course, your system as a whole will probably need to be redone by the time RAM requirements reach such lofty desires, but why push it?

------------------
"No, we do not gnaw on our kitty." - Dr. Evil

[malcore]

Interesting stuff YODA. Thanks for that info. As to 9x and ME being passe, weren't these systems designed for the average home user, and not the power user or professional? Unless the "average" home user is conducting large amounts of video editing and such, what real need does he/she have for more than 512MB RAM?(let alone 3 GB )
However, point taken in regard to these systems: more is NOT better sometimes. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by malcore (edited 06-29-2002)

[This message has been edited by malcore (edited 06-29-2002).]

[YODA74]

I don't think there is ever going to be enough ramm, every couple of months everything seems to change as far as computers and what people want and need to do with them, photo editing for the normal home PC owner is getting very very popular.Folks are getting more time on there hands so new hobbies and games and power hungry toys are being developed everyday.

and yes ME and 9x are definatly going to be on the wayside before we know it. may not be completely gone with some, but i see in ten years a whole new generation of the way computers will be used in the household and it will take power hungry machines.

sorry for eating up your thread phish I hoped we answered your question

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


PUSH TO TEST. RELEASE TO DETONATE.
[Closed captioned for the thinking impaired.]

[phish]

I thank you all very much for your considerate, timely and educational replies. I'm a little late in providing the requested information, but the mobo will be Abit KT7A which has 3 memory slots (PC100/PC133 SDRAM). I intend to first load MS 98 SE operating system and then install the MS XP upgrade.

I doubt that this information will change your opinions. What I have learned is that buying the one stick of 512MB ram should run as good as two slots containing 256MB, and by using up only one of the three slots, I could expand upon this threefold.

joea64 however points out a very logical reason to occupy more than one slot (failure of one will still leave one operating memory stick). I would perhaps counter this by saying that if there was a failure of one memory module, for the most part it would be undetectable as there seems to be a world of other things that can slow up a system. If only one slot were used and it failed, you would know immediately that you had a problem.

I know that I lack the depth of knowledge of you folks. That's why I'm building a PC system---to learn. Thank you.

[Mark Miller]

again, if not running xp over 256 is overkill and you system will not use it correctly except possibly for games, but if you insist the more sticks the better

[ranchdog]

Go for however the price break works out...

One stick as opposed to two.

Overclockers swear by a single stick.

Please don't mix 'n' match different brands, etc.

OCZ memory has earned itself a questionable reputation.

Samsung * original * (on the KOREA Pcb) is excellent,
however, the later memory sticks on the generic Pcb
doesen't fare to well. I learned the hard way on this one.


Luck.

[rond36]

This is what Microsoft has to say about the 512MB+ RAM problem (http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=KB;EN-US;Q253912&LN=EN-US&SD=tech&FR=0&) in all flavors of Win 9X

[rond36]

Originally posted by Mark Miller
again, if not running xp over 256 is overkill and you system will not use it correctly except possibly for games, but if you insist the more sticks the better

That is not true at all! I have 768MB of Samsung PC2700 installed (3 256MB DIMMs) if I remove 2 DIMMs there is a noticeable decrease in performance in Win ME and XP in all programs and Windows in general. If I add a DIMM back both operating systems run noticeably faster and if I add another one Win XP runs even faster but ME stays the same because it is limited to 512MB via msconfig. Win ME is capable of using up to 512MB and there is noticeable overall improvement running 512MB over 256MB

phish

There is no need to install 98SE than XP over it. If you have an upgrade copy of XP install it as you would install the full or OEM versions and when prompted remove your Win XP CD and insert your Win 98SE disk Win XP settup will check it to be sure you qualify for the upgrade than you switch the CDs back and continue to install XP. Doing it this way you will have allot more stable operating system and it will take allot less time to install.

I have the upgrade version on my Athlon system and have never installed it as an upgrade I always do a full install. I use my full OEM Win 98 CD to qualify for the upgrade.

I Think 1 512 MB DIMM would be better than 2 256 MB DIMMs because 1 DIMM consumes less power than 2 and produces less heat. It also cuts the chances of a module failure in half because you only have one that could fail instead of two and most good modules have a lifetime warranty.

If I could have found 512MB DIMMs of PC2700 I would have bought them but when I bought my 256MB DIMMs, 512MB DIMMs weren't sold only 128MB and 256MB.

[Mark Miller]

quick question to ron 36.
if you remove 2 sticks and bring it down to 256, or 1 stick to 512 is there that much difference in speed of programs, and what kind of programs are you talking about? Are they games, internet or word processing? just curious,as I have room for another 512 mgs on my boxx.
thanks Mark

[rond36]

Mark Miller;
All programs and Windows overall performance. With 512 or 768MB programs load faster graphics refresh faster and you almost never see the hourglass.