|
Thread: Ram
-
May 30th, 2001, 11:54 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Addicted Member
Ram
I have Windows 2000 and 384mb of ram, but for some weird reasons when i take out my 128 (left with 256) my computer seem to run WAY faster, how could that happen?? is it possible that the computer is faster or its just me??
*Rudy^
Visual Studio 6 Ent. SP5
Windows 2000 SP4
Windows XP SP1a
-
May 30th, 2001, 11:58 AM
#2
Hyperactive Member
Is the 128mb PC-100 ram and the 256mb block PC-133 ram? That would explain it.
I'm assuming that you're using DIMMS are you using SIMMS?
SD
"I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy!"
-
May 30th, 2001, 12:05 PM
#3
Frenzied Member
It is also possible that you don't need that much memory. Windows could be wasting time paging through memory or swapping memory that you don't really need.
It is much more likely though that the block you removed wasn't a full bus speed like SD pointed out.
Travis, Kung Foo Journeyman
As always, RTFM.
WWW Standards: HTML 4.01, CSS Level 2, ECMA 262 Bindings to DOM Level 1, JavaScript 1.3 Guide and Reference
Perl: Learn Perl, Llama, Camel, Cookbook, Perl Monks, Perl Mongers, O'Reilly's Perl.com, ActiveState, CPAN, TPJ, and use Perl;
YBMS, but Mozilla doesn't.
-
May 31st, 2001, 02:35 AM
#4
Thread Starter
Addicted Member
hum...no actualy both chip are 133 and i believe its DIMMS
*Rudy^
Visual Studio 6 Ent. SP5
Windows 2000 SP4
Windows XP SP1a
-
May 31st, 2001, 02:57 AM
#5
I remember reading this, or I could just be brainfarting, but Windows doesn't actually do much with more than 256 MB. So I'm going with cyberthug.
-
May 31st, 2001, 03:26 AM
#6
Lively Member
It might just be simply that one of your DIMM's isn't 100% compatible with your motherboard. I have 256Mb PC133 RAM and that keeps crashing every-so-often. But i also have 128Mb of PC100 RAM that is much more stable and it appears that the systems does run either at the same speed or a bit faster.
Try and find out whether the manufacturer of your motherboard have a BIOS upgrade. 'Cos if they do, it usually makes the system more stable (is that grammatically correct?... who cares?)
Now, aren't you sorry you didn't just keep on scrolling?
-
May 31st, 2001, 03:29 AM
#7
Lively Member
Originally posted by sunnyl
I remember reading this, or I could just be brainfarting, but Windows doesn't actually do much with more than 256 MB. So I'm going with cyberthug.
You could well be right because when Win95 (may it rest in peace) was released it would only handlle up to 64Mb RAM, So they may have developed Win98 (may it burn in hell) they might have restricted it to 256Mb, I have to admit to not having seen a difference in performance with more than that amount.
Now, aren't you sorry you didn't just keep on scrolling?
-
May 31st, 2001, 10:13 AM
#8
Thread Starter
Addicted Member
yeah well as u can see in the post up there, i have no problem with win98 cause i dont have it i have 2000
*Rudy^
Visual Studio 6 Ent. SP5
Windows 2000 SP4
Windows XP SP1a
-
May 31st, 2001, 12:16 PM
#9
Frenzied Member
You might have different RAM speeds and CLS. Your 256 is prob faster and has a lower CLS. RAM speed and CLS will sync to the slowest setting on your RAM. So if your 256 was 7.5ns and CLS 2 and your 128 was 8.5ns and CLS 3, your speed would be 8.5ns and CLS 3.
MSVS 6, .NET & .NET 2003 Pro
I HATE MSDN with .NET & .NET 2003!!!
Check out my sites:
http://www.filthyhands.com
http://www.techno-coding.com

-
May 31st, 2001, 06:18 PM
#10
Thread Starter
Addicted Member
well actualy i bought both at the same time, they're the same brand and everything the ONLY difference is that one is 128 and the other 256
*Rudy^
Visual Studio 6 Ent. SP5
Windows 2000 SP4
Windows XP SP1a
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|