Paul wrote in news
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , VanguardLH
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
o check it _can_ take more RAM. (Probably can - 3/4 seems an odd
limit.)

We don't know where he is getting the information on memory
capacity. The OS will reserve some so maybe he is reporting how much
user-mode memory is available. Something simple would be to run
msinfo32.exe and remarking what it says is "Installed Physical
Memory" in the "System Summary" root tree node.

True. I was guessing maybe he has a 512M and a 256M stick, so I'd
assumed it should take at least 1G (as 2 512Ms). But you might be
right and he's going by what's reported rather than what's installed.

I'm thinking it's a different motherboard,
an older one, and the install is 3x256MB and they're
PC133 SDRAM.

Yes to both.


It's probably not the one I picked as an example
from the Crucial page. That's a more modern standard
than PC133.

I picked that one mainly, as a contrast to the
expected configuration of 3x256MB. And to suggest the
5000 series spanned a few years.

Both systems (a 3x256 and a 2x512) are single channel,
so there's no issue with mismatched RAM as such.

If you use CPUZ, it shows the SPD information
for each populated slot, so you can see
what is physically plugged into the slots
(without attempting to use DMIDecode).
All the OSes have MAXMEM, so you can trim
down the reported free RAM for experimental
purposes. (Especially useful in the Win98 era.)
By using CPUZ, you can see what's actually
installed, without opening the cover.

Paul




--
I love a good meal! That's why I don't cook.