cheetah chrome

just got two 512 sticks of pc2100 ddr sdram for my computer. i keep getting conflicts (all sorts of "kernel" blue screens of death) when trying to run over 512 megs. the memory check comes up ok for 1024/768 so im confident my slot 2 is ok and each stick works fine if i install them alone. im running winme (i knows its garbage but until i get around to getting xp its got to do) is there a cap for the amount of ram it will allow (i know its a silly question but im only getting windows conflicts otherwise all scans run ok)? i know esd isnt an issue i was grounded entire time. its sad when i cant even upgrade my comps ram hehehehe <img src="graemlins/c.gif" border="0" alt="[ouch]" /> . thanks in advance

FSTPRSH

I mainly do physical network running and setup, but I recall some motherboards not being capable of more than a certain amount. Also, some boards can be set for DDR or SDRAM, check to see if a jumper is in the wrong place or not. Like I said, I mainly play with my cable, and not my board.

944S2NUT

They are afew variations of RDRAM make sure its the exact same ram as u have + make sure its compatible with ur mainboard.

cheetah chrome

yea im sure its the correct type of ram, ive ran each stick separatly and they work fine. i have an asus motherboard...ill have to look into its capacity for ram. didnt think of that one <img src="graemlins/c.gif" border="0" alt="[ouch]" /> . pretty sure its a jumper free operation, memory scan at start up reads and checks out the 1024 and gives it a pass. thanks....lots of people listing tonight hehehehe 5 min replies....cheers gang <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

Mr_Underhill

It may not be that your mobo cant handle it but more that your OS cant. Me is just like 98 and i remember a friend telling me the memory cap on 98 and i remeber thinking it was pretty low. Plus if your memory check reads both sticks it prolly means its not your board. And since they work fine when only one of them is in at a given time, i would have to say it has something to do with the max ammount of memory that win98 can handle. look into it further though, as my babaling hasnt really helped much im sure. heh.

cheetah chrome

actually underhill i was kinda hoping that was the answer, but wasnt sure....i stil dont get the ram cap idea but hell who knows. im gonna upgrade to xp someday anyone know if there is a memory cap/limit for xp??? thanks again everyone

phantom309

get xp. winme can't cope with that much ram.

sweanders

[quote]Originally posted by phantom309:
<strong>get xp. winme can't cope with that much ram.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Don´t think that is the problem.

Try upgrading the BIOS, if that doesn´t work there is most probably a compatibility problem with the new memory. Get an intel certified memory, i.e Samsung och Kingston.

Regards,
Anders

Matt O.

[quote]Originally posted by sweanders:
<strong>

Don´t think that is the problem.

Try upgrading the BIOS, if that doesn´t work there is most probably a compatibility problem with the new memory. Get an intel certified memory, i.e Samsung och Kingston.

Regards,
Anders</strong><hr></blockquote>


Actually, I'm pretty sure that is the problem (what was stated a few posts above). If you search the windows help files online, you will find this problem as a FAQ. It's common. Something with windows doesn't jive over a certain number of RAM. You have to edit some file, I don't remember which one, but the name of the file is in the Windows help thing online. Tells you what to do.

Or just upgrade to XP.

-Matt

Jonathan Martini

I think this is the microsoft article Matt was mentioning:

<a href="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q253912" target="_blank">Microsoft FAQ question: more than 512Meg on Win 95 based windows</a>

phantom309

Honestly, a gig of RAM is overkill even with XP, unless you're working with HUGE graphics or video files. For 98% of PC users there's no benefit to going over 512. With WinME there's no benefit over 256 or so, and even that's kind of a kludge. Remember that when win9x was originally coded RAM cost $50/meg. It never occurred to them that anyone would try to run $50,000 worth of it in a home system.

Water944t

OK.

As far as ram in ME, I pesonally run 512MB, and have for years. For gaming or video, the extra RAM is like adding 3-400Mhz to your machine. I have had 768MB in the machine, but the performance increase is negligable. I have built trouble free machines with 3 sticks of 512 on a regular basis. Most modern boards will support up to 1.5-3GB. You are correct that Win95/98 can have an issue with reporting correct values, but its usually not fatal. Nor is it automatic.

What you are experiencing sounds a lot to me like one of the sticks is bad. Not 'kill-it-dead' bad, but 'only under certain loads' bad. I would try both, one at a time, under heavy load conditions. Run Photoshop and UT at the same time kinda stuff. Make sure you have the latest BIOS from Asus. A friend of mine bought an Asus board a while back, and had a lot of the same types of problems, turned out to be a first-gen board that had an issue, and Asus replaced it with a 2nd-gen for free. You might check the user-support forums at Asus, just to see if thats the problem.

I also advocate ME over XP. Anyone who deals with security or likes to have applications work, can identify with what I am saying. Many programs are NOT XP stable. ME, assuming that you bother to apply all the service updates, is a very stable and user-friendly OS. (Not in the same class as Linux, but hey, this is Microshaft we are talking about.) I regularly get 2 weeks of uptime from my ME machine. Shhh, all you Linux guys just shut up.

There are a lot of things I personally disapprove of that are built into XP, spyware being at the top of the list. M$ has no freaking business, IMHO, with what sites I frequent, and what programs I DL. Nor do they have a right to the COMPLETE system specs of my machine. (I once printed out the list that is sent to MS, it included over 7 pages of data, all the hardware numbers of my machine, my log-on name, and my real name as well.)

Privacy is a vanishing species, I understand this. But some of you should actually read the end-user agreement, and its malicious fine-print. You will find that you basically give M$ the right to invade your machine at will, to have your actions logged and tracked, as well as agreeing that they can shut your machine down at will, permanantly.

I shouldnt even get started on this one. But at least ME is built on the old kernel, which doesnt include some of the more advanced 'anti-piracy' (or Big-Brother, for those of you who can read between the lines) features.

George Orwell would love all of this, and do the 'ha-ha, told you so' dance.

d richard

I have no problems running 512 megs on win98. In fact I noticed a big improvement. I can now run winmx, winamp,zone alarm and surf all at the same time. Before it was lockup city

cheetah chrome

thanks for all the advice gang....i know you linux guys are diehards heheheh....i run linux at work, and i have a mountain of worthless caldera systems stock but i still love the penguin. heheh 1024 being an overkill...no my 24" flat screen crt trini's an overkill heheh....i decided to go crazy w/ the ram because its cheap and it comes in handy while gaming (yea im a nerd, i know). i bought micron ram which i equate to kingston and samsung. when i finally figure out the issue ill post the cause. thanks again all of ya

Danno

Actually, what I've found makes the most dramatic improvement is to use that extra RAM as a virtual solid-state disk.