Order of SDRAM strips on MB

[maradcliff]

I have a Pentium II 400MHZ computer. Right now I have a 128meg SDRAM
and a 64 meg installed for a total of 196megs. I just got another 128
meg strip for the last (3rd) slot. Is there any reason to put them in
any order? In other words, should the two 128's be together with the
64 in the last slot? Right now, I will end up with the 64 in the
middle slot unless I move it over. Seems I heard something about
keeping the sizes together a long time ago. But that might just be
nonsense too, and may be outdated also, because that was probably for
an old 386 or 486.

Mark

 

[Rod Speed]

(e-mail address removed) wrote

I have a Pentium II 400MHZ computer.

Nothing like 'living' in the fast lane.

Right now I have a 128meg SDRAM and a 64 meg installed
for a total of 196megs. I just got another 128 meg strip for
the last (3rd) slot. Is there any reason to put them in any order?

Varys with the motherboard and the manual should say.

If you have lost the manual, it may still be downloadable.

In other words, should the two 128's be together with the 64 in the last slot?
Right now, I will end up with the 64 in the middle slot unless I move it over.
Seems I heard something about keeping the sizes together a long time ago.
But that might just be nonsense too, and may be outdated also, because
that was probably for an old 386 or 486.

Its actually the more recent motherboards that
benefit from installing the modules in pairs.

No harm in trying it if you have lost the manual and cant download it now.

 

[paulmd]

I have a Pentium II 400MHZ computer. Right now I have a 128meg SDRAM
and a 64 meg installed for a total of 196megs. I just got another 128
meg strip for the last (3rd) slot. Is there any reason to put them in
any order? In other words, should the two 128's be together with the
64 in the last slot? Right now, I will end up with the 64 in the
middle slot unless I move it over. Seems I heard something about
keeping the sizes together a long time ago. But that might just be
nonsense too, and may be outdated also, because that was probably for
an old 386 or 486.

Mark

Not on that computer there isn't. On computers with SIMMS, there was a
requirement to pair them up. And, as pointed out, many newer computers
benefit from matching pairs, but it's not a requirement.

But very few non-server machines with pc 100 or pc133 have any sort of
memory matching requirement (though it's good practice, if you can, to
avoid weird compatibility issues that may occur with mismatched ram).

 

[maradcliff]

(e-mail address removed) wrote


Nothing like 'living' in the fast lane.

Hey, i just changed the CPU an doubled the speed.
I really dont need more power, its only for the internet and some
office type programs. No games.

Varys with the motherboard and the manual should say.

If you have lost the manual, it may still be downloadable.


Its actually the more recent motherboards that
benefit from installing the modules in pairs.

No harm in trying it if you have lost the manual and cant download it now.

I did some trial and error and it worked out fine on the second boot.
The first time one was not pushed in tiht enough. I now have 320megs
ram.

Thanks

Mark

 

[paulmd]

Hey, i just changed the CPU an doubled the speed.

In that case, why didn't you get a p3 450mhz or 500mhz? Works in most
all old p2s.

Sometimes you can go clear up to 800mhz and beyond.

 

[maradcliff]

In that case, why didn't you get a p3 450mhz or 500mhz? Works in most
all old p2s.

Sometimes you can go clear up to 800mhz and beyond.

I just changed it to a P III 700mhz. My MB takes up to 800mhz.

Until last month, I never used anyting faster than a pentium 266 and
happily used that puter since 1997. But that MB died, so I picked up
this puter with 400mhz P II. Oddly enough, I thought my old P266 was
faster. Now, with this new CPU and another 128m of ram, I am faster
than anything previously used. All I need now is a cpu cooler that
fits and I'll be happy. I think only the gamers need anything faster
than this, and I dont do games. I also run Win98 and have no interest
in XP. I recently tried to help a friend with XP when they kept
crashing, and I really learned to appreciate using w98.

 

[Rod Speed]

I just changed it to a P III 700mhz. My MB takes up to 800mhz.

Until last month, I never used anyting faster than a pentium 266 and
happily used that puter since 1997. But that MB died, so I picked up
this puter with 400mhz P II. Oddly enough, I thought my old P266 was
faster. Now, with this new CPU and another 128m of ram, I am faster
than anything previously used. All I need now is a cpu cooler that
fits and I'll be happy. I think only the gamers need anything faster
than this, and I dont do games. I also run Win98 and have no interest
in XP. I recently tried to help a friend with XP when they kept
crashing, and I really learned to appreciate using w98.

You wanna try a decent digital camera and you'll appreciate XP.

In spades with ipods.

 

[maradcliff]

You wanna try a decent digital camera and you'll appreciate XP.

In spades with ipods.

I have a decent digital camera. My card reader puts the pictures on
my harddrive using Win98. I dont understand why XP would make this
any better. You kind of lost me here !!!!
My 1998 version of ACDSEE 2.4 still views them perfectly too. (I
never saw a need to upgrade it..... More bloat just makes it harder to
use.)

I'm too old to want an Ipod <lol>.
What DO you call that noise the kids listen to on those things,
anyhow? It's NOT music.....

My kind of music is all on vinyl and requires a "hard to find" needle
(also known as a stylus). Now I dated myself

Off the topic, but the other day I had a kid helping me and he had to
change my radio station from the oldies to some of this "noise" they
listen to these days. The station seemed to play this one song about
every 45 minutes. (must be the #1 hit of the week). During the whole
song they kept inducing this 60cycle hum as an effect. It was done
intentionally. Someone must have kept switching on a microphone with
a bad cord. Now thats really high tech..... I used to work with a
sound crew for concerts and we always hated when we had a bad cable.
Now they use it as part of the song. Like wow, the "dropped ground"
effect is really cool !!!! Whatever happened to REAL music?

 

[kony]

I have a decent digital camera. My card reader puts the pictures on
my harddrive using Win98. I dont understand why XP would make this
any better. You kind of lost me here !!!!

People that don't have decent software appreciate the
features built into XP. Those who have software and are
already proficient at doing things another way are usually
as well off continuing to do it that way regardless of
running XP or not.

My 1998 version of ACDSEE 2.4 still views them perfectly too. (I
never saw a need to upgrade it..... More bloat just makes it harder to
use.)

I like v3.1 better, but agree that it got a bit bloated with
successive versions.

I'm too old to want an Ipod <lol>.
What DO you call that noise the kids listen to on those things,
anyhow? It's NOT music.....

Well you don't have to listen to their stuff, Win98 can rip
to MP3 or other compatible formats for typical MP3 player
use. Even so, it does tend to be the kids that have to use
headphones or ear buds, 'cuz when it's your house you can
listen as loud as you want till the neighbors start
complaining.

 

[Rod Speed]

(e-mail address removed) wrote

I have a decent digital camera. My card reader puts the
pictures on my harddrive using Win98. I dont understand
why XP would make this any better. You kind of lost me here !!!!

The advantage with XP is where the camera has a USB connection.
You can just plug the camera in and the camera shows up as a drive
with XP, nothing to install, no farting around at all, its all auto.

My 1998 version of ACDSEE 2.4 still views them perfectly too. (I never
saw a need to upgrade it..... More bloat just makes it harder to use.)

In fact that sort of thing is much EASIER to use, nothing to install at all.

I'm too old to want an Ipod <lol>.
What DO you call that noise the kids listen
to on those things, anyhow? It's NOT music.....

You can put any music you like on an ipod.

My kind of music is all on vinyl and requires
a "hard to find" needle (also known as a stylus).

Figures. A decent electronic music system leaves that
for dead even if you dont need the portability of an ipod.

And even you should have noticed that turntables and styluses
dont actually work that well in the car or out of the house etc.

Now I dated myself

Its more your mentality that you have flaunted.

Off the topic, but the other day I had a kid helping me and he had to
change my radio station from the oldies to some of this "noise" they
listen to these days. The station seemed to play this one song about
every 45 minutes. (must be the #1 hit of the week). During the whole
song they kept inducing this 60cycle hum as an effect. It was done
intentionally. Someone must have kept switching on a microphone with
a bad cord. Now thats really high tech..... I used to work with a
sound crew for concerts and we always hated when we had a bad cable.
Now they use it as part of the song. Like wow, the "dropped ground"
effect is really cool !!!! Whatever happened to REAL music?

Nothing to stop you putting the sort of music you prefer from your
radio station on an ipod etc so you can listen to what you want to
listen to instead of what the radio station chooses to broadcast.

 

[kony]

In fact that sort of thing is much EASIER to use, nothing to install at all.

Not really, you mean it's easier to not install something
but that only takes a minute. ACDSee is easily better than
XP's integrated viewer, though I support if you were used to
XP's, it'd be sufficient.

 

[Rod Speed]

Not really,

Fraid so.

you mean it's easier to not install something
Nope.

but that only takes a minute.

Assuming it actually installs properly.

ACDSee is easily better than XP's integrated viewer,
though I support if you were used to XP's, it'd be sufficient.

I was talking about XP over Win98, not ACDSEE over XP and
the installation of the camera. You dont need to install it at all
with XP, just plug it in and carry on regardless. Leaves 98 for dead.

 

[maradcliff]

People that don't have decent software appreciate the
features built into XP. Those who have software and are
already proficient at doing things another way are usually
as well off continuing to do it that way regardless of
running XP or not.

I still like to be able to manipulate the system and create my own
"personalized" feel. I started computers with Dos. With Dos, every
user pretty much had to create their own system. It seems every new
version of windows takes away that freedom. I guess this is good for
someone who never touched a computer, but rather blahze for us old
timers.

I like v3.1 better, but agree that it got a bit bloated with
successive versions.

What does 3.1 have that earlier vers. dont have?
What more can a picture view have that already views pictures?

Well you don't have to listen to their stuff, Win98 can rip
to MP3 or other compatible formats for typical MP3 player
use. Even so, it does tend to be the kids that have to use
headphones or ear buds, 'cuz when it's your house you can
listen as loud as you want till the neighbors start
complaining.

Or their ear drums burst and bleed......

I hate ear buds and headphones. Give me a nice 18" Woofer and some
horn Tweeters. Half of listening to music is feeling the bass, and
thats even true for a live orchestra playing Clasical music.

 

[kony]

I was talking about XP over Win98, not ACDSEE over XP and
the installation of the camera. You dont need to install it at all
with XP, just plug it in and carry on regardless. Leaves 98 for dead.

When you have other reasons to use XP, perhaps, but
certainly not just to use XP's inferior integral picture
viewer and camera PNP (when 98 already has the camera
working). One should upgrade the OS when what they have
/doesn't/ work, not when it does.

 

[Rod Speed]

When you have other reasons to use XP, perhaps,

Wrong again. Its worth using XP for its very decent camera support
even if you dont use it for anything else instead of a dinosaur like Win98.

but certainly not just to use XP's inferior integral picture viewer

Never even mentioned that. And that is STILL
better than what comes with Win98 ANYWAY.

Yes, its better to add something better to both XP and Win98 for that.

and camera PNP (when 98 already has the camera working).

Much easier to get it working with XP and much easier
to handle more than one camera too, even if thats only
for the occasional use with a foreign camera etc as well.

One should upgrade the OS when what
they have /doesn't/ work, not when it does.

Wrong, as always. The other obvious time to upgrade
is when it works much better with the upgraded OS.

And it limits you less in the future too. ipod support is pathetic with Win98 for example.

 

[kony]

Wrong again. Its worth using XP for its very decent camera support
even if you dont use it for anything else instead of a dinosaur like Win98.

Vague nonsense in this context - when OP already has the
camera support required, working.

If we want to consider the possibility that some present or
future cameras may not be supported on win98 at all, that is
a different situation, and as written above, "other reasons
to use XP".

Never even mentioned that. And that is STILL
better than what comes with Win98 ANYWAY.

We don't have to care what comes with Win98, similarly
anyone wanting best results on XP won't care what comes with
it either.

Yes, its better to add something better to both XP and Win98 for that.


Much easier to get it working with XP and much easier
to handle more than one camera too, even if thats only
for the occasional use with a foreign camera etc as well.

Easier or harder are fairly irrelevant, either it's
supported or not and in the OP's case, it is.

Wrong, as always. The other obvious time to upgrade
is when it works much better with the upgraded OS.

And it limits you less in the future too. ipod support is pathetic with Win98 for example.

Sounds a lot like you are suggesting OP should want to do
something someone else did instead... and when someone does
find their needs require upgrade, then they will. Same goes
for XP to Vista, plenty of people will find XP fine for
their needs but someone will surely come along and pretend
they *need* Vista when they really didn't.

 

[Rod Speed]

Vague nonsense in this context -

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

when OP already has the camera support required, working.

He's unlikely to use that camera forever, and
unlikely to only ever use that one camera either.

If we want to consider the possibility that some present
or future cameras may not be supported on win98 at all,

Didnt even consider that particular question, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

that is a different situation, and as written above, "other reasons to use XP".

Wrong, as always.

We don't have to care what comes with Win98, similarly anyone
wanting best results on XP won't care what comes with it either.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether
XP's camera support leaves Win98's for dead.

Easier or harder are fairly irrelevant,

Wrong, as always.

either it's supported or not

There's a difference between the effortless support that you
get with XP and the much cruder approach seen with Win98.

and in the OP's case, it is.

Irrelevant to whether XP does it much better.

Sounds a lot like you are suggesting OP should
want to do something someone else did instead...

Time to get those ears tested, again.

I was suggesting nothing of the sort and wasnt even suggesting anything either.

I was JUST rubbing your nose in the stupidity of that particular claim of yours.

and when someone does find their needs require upgrade, then they will.

There's a difference between require and get an advantage from, stupid.

Same goes for XP to Vista, plenty of people will find XP
fine for their needs but someone will surely come along
and pretend they *need* Vista when they really didn't.

There's a difference between need and get an advantage from, stupid.

 

[kony]

He's unlikely to use that camera forever, and
unlikely to only ever use that one camera either.

I don't recall advising him to BUY Win98 today, but it's
what he has and it's working. It may easily fall short of
his needs, someday, but that is a per-user scenario. Until
then, switching OS so he could do what YOU want to do on
YOUR system, is a bit short sighted.

 

[Rod Speed]

I don't recall advising him to BUY Win98 today,

No one ever said you did.

but it's what he has and it's working.

Not as well as XP does with other cameras.

It may easily fall short of his needs, someday,

Very unlikely to quite soon.

but that is a per-user scenario.
Nope.

Until then, switching OS so he could do what YOU
want to do on YOUR system, is a bit short sighted.

I never said a word about what I want do do on
my system, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Keep desperately digging, you'll be out in china any day now, AGAIN.

 

[kony]

Keep desperately digging, you'll be out in china any day now, AGAIN.

So am I digging to china or in a wet paper bag?

That'd really be something, if I could stay in the bag and
dig at the same time. Can WinXP give me that nirvana? LOL.