If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
This computer (Compaq 5400US) came with two 128M Ram sticks, for a total
of 256m. The computer maximum allowed RAM is 512M. I want to upgrade to that maximum. There are only 2 slots. I can install TWO 256m sticks. But can I install just ONE 512m stick? Finding memory for this machine is a challenge in itself. It needs 168pin - Low density - PC133 SDRAM. Trying to locate using charts provided by the memory companies all show ONLY up to 256m, and they want $20 or more per stick. I'm planning to build a more powerful computer, but this old relic runs, and seems to work well. So, for now it will do. But I'm not sticking $40 or more into it. However, I have found on ebay some used RAM, buy it now, Two 512m sticks of 168pin - Low density - PC133 SDRAM, for about $10 incl. shipping. Although I can only use one of them, the price is right, and I'll have a spare. But I'm not 100% sure if I can use just one 512m sticks, or MUST I use TWO 256m sticks? |
Ads |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
From:
This computer (Compaq 5400US) came with two 128M Ram sticks, for a total of 256m. The computer maximum allowed RAM is 512M. I want to upgrade to that maximum. There are only 2 slots. I can install TWO 256m sticks. But can I install just ONE 512m stick? Finding memory for this machine is a challenge in itself. It needs 168pin - Low density - PC133 SDRAM. Trying to locate using charts provided by the memory companies all show ONLY up to 256m, and they want $20 or more per stick. I'm planning to build a more powerful computer, but this old relic runs, and seems to work well. So, for now it will do. But I'm not sticking $40 or more into it. However, I have found on ebay some used RAM, buy it now, Two 512m sticks of 168pin - Low density - PC133 SDRAM, for about $10 incl. shipping. Although I can only use one of them, the price is right, and I'll have a spare. But I'm not 100% sure if I can use just one 512m sticks, or MUST I use TWO 256m sticks? LOL - Garbage. Chuck it. -- Dave Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
David H. Lipman wrote:
From: This computer (Compaq 5400US) came with two 128M Ram sticks, for a total of 256m. The computer maximum allowed RAM is 512M. I want to upgrade to that maximum. There are only 2 slots. I can install TWO 256m sticks. But can I install just ONE 512m stick? Finding memory for this machine is a challenge in itself. It needs 168pin - Low density - PC133 SDRAM. Trying to locate using charts provided by the memory companies all show ONLY up to 256m, and they want $20 or more per stick. I'm planning to build a more powerful computer, but this old relic runs, and seems to work well. So, for now it will do. But I'm not sticking $40 or more into it. However, I have found on ebay some used RAM, buy it now, Two 512m sticks of 168pin - Low density - PC133 SDRAM, for about $10 incl. shipping. Although I can only use one of them, the price is right, and I'll have a spare. But I'm not 100% sure if I can use just one 512m sticks, or MUST I use TWO 256m sticks? LOL - Garbage. Chuck it. Well, he could probably get by ok with 512MB if he's using XP (assuming his CPU speed is at least halfway decent). I hesitate to think what running XP on 256MB would be like. :-) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
On 3/5/2014 9:53 PM, Good Guy wrote:
You should scrap this machine and buy a new one. This machine can't run amy modern Applications and if the machine is for some serious work then it is time to get a new one. All the major brands have good deals on machines with minimum 4GB RAM and Windows 8/8.1 preloaded. Go an get it and you will be amazed at the efficiency of these new machines in terms of speed and energy consumption. I~t will pay itself off in two years time and you will become employable with latest knowledge of Windows . Really? Personally I like my older machines much better. The ones from the 2006/7 era with dual cores are my favorites. They can run XP, Vista, 7, and 8 just fine. Newer machines can't run all of those versions. Plus it is harder and harder to get 32 bit Windows in newer machines. They all seem to want to push the 64 bit versions. Those 64 bit versions are worthless to me, since all of my software is either 16 or 32 bit. Heck this machine is less than 2 years old and I rather use my older machines myself. These newer machines can't even play and record video as well as my XP machines can. And quite frankly, these newer Windows versions are not very special either. As I could be running XP just as well and in some cases better off. :-) -- Bill Dell Latitude Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('12 era) - Thunderbird v12 Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Pro |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
From: "Bill in Co"
David H. Lipman wrote: From: This computer (Compaq 5400US) came with two 128M Ram sticks, for a total of 256m. The computer maximum allowed RAM is 512M. I want to upgrade to that maximum. There are only 2 slots. I can install TWO 256m sticks. But can I install just ONE 512m stick? Finding memory for this machine is a challenge in itself. It needs 168pin - Low density - PC133 SDRAM. Trying to locate using charts provided by the memory companies all show ONLY up to 256m, and they want $20 or more per stick. I'm planning to build a more powerful computer, but this old relic runs, and seems to work well. So, for now it will do. But I'm not sticking $40 or more into it. However, I have found on ebay some used RAM, buy it now, Two 512m sticks of 168pin - Low density - PC133 SDRAM, for about $10 incl. shipping. Although I can only use one of them, the price is right, and I'll have a spare. But I'm not 100% sure if I can use just one 512m sticks, or MUST I use TWO 256m sticks? LOL - Garbage. Chuck it. Well, he could probably get by ok with 512MB if he's using XP (assuming his CPU speed is at least halfway decent). I hesitate to think what running XP on 256MB would be like. :-) A system with a Max RAM 512MB is just a boat anchor. It mights say it supports WinXP but it was "really designed for" Win9x/ME, NT4 and Win2K. -- Dave Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
In ,
David H. Lipman typed: Well, he could probably get by ok with 512MB if he's using XP (assuming his CPU speed is at least halfway decent). I hesitate to think what running XP on 256MB would be like. :-) A system with a Max RAM 512MB is just a boat anchor. It mights say it supports WinXP but it was "really designed for" Win9x/ME, NT4 and Win2K. I wouldn't go that far. Sure I find XP with 1GB runs really well for itself. And sure XP with 512MB will do some amount of noticeable swapping. But I won't call it a boat anchor. What did the OP say something like 20 bucks to beef it up with two 256MB used RAM cards? To me that is well worth it if it means saving hundreds of dollars on something newer. Giving some more thought, a computer that can handle 512MB of RAM I would guess would be a Celeron 400MHz or better. That would be plenty for XP. Although a computer of that vintage could have as little as a 6GB hard drive. That would be very tight for XP SP2. Something like 30 or 60GB would be much better. So that might add some extra expense. But I could be satisfied with such a system for the most part. ;-) -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 12:19:11 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:
A system with a Max RAM 512MB is just a boat anchor. It mights say it supports WinXP but it was "really designed for" Win9x/ME, NT4 and Win2K. I wouldn't go that far. Sure I find XP with 1GB runs really well for itself. And sure XP with 512MB will do some amount of noticeable swapping. But I won't call it a boat anchor. What did the OP say something like 20 bucks to beef it up with two 256MB used RAM cards? To me that is well worth it if it means saving hundreds of dollars on something newer. Giving some more thought, a computer that can handle 512MB of RAM I would guess would be a Celeron 400MHz or better. That would be plenty for XP. Although a computer of that vintage could have as little as a 6GB hard drive. That would be very tight for XP SP2. Something like 30 or 60GB would be much better. So that might add some extra expense. But I could be satisfied with such a system for the most part. ;-) Its a 1200mhz CPU. Compaq 5400us presario It came with XP Home installerd. The label with the XP registration number is on the case. I ordered the two 512m ram sticks for $10. I'll use the extra one for another computer. $5 is worth the upgrade cost. Plus I ordered a used 80g hard drive for $18.00. So for $23 total I got a computer newer and faster than my Win98 one. The only other part I had t oinstall was another CD drive, which I took out of another dead computer. I do have a much faster machine to build up next. It's a 2ghz P4. It was in a flood, so all the drives are shot, but the mainboard seems to work. When I got it, it was all covered with mud. I hosed it really well, and let it sit in the sun for a few weeks. I was rather surprised it worked at all. The bios works fien, but the HD is shot, as well as the CD drive. There was no floppy drive in it, but I'll put one. I cant have a computer without a floppy drive. It's needed to boot them from Dos to get em' going. That computer has 4gigs of ram in it. Just for grins, i ripped the CD drive apart, and hosed all the mud out of it yesterday. After it drys for a week, I'll give it a try..... I have my doubts, but it dont hurt to try.... |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 03:53:35 +0000, Good Guy
wrote: On 06/03/2014 01:35, wrote: This computer (Compaq 5400US) came with two 128M Ram sticks, for a total of 256m. The computer maximum allowed RAM is 512M. I want to upgrade to that maximum. There are only 2 slots. I can install TWO 256m sticks. But can I install just ONE 512m stick? Finding memory for this machine is a challenge in itself. It needs 168pin - Low density - PC133 SDRAM. Trying to locate using charts provided by the memory companies all show ONLY up to 256m, and they want $20 or more per stick. I'm planning to build a more powerful computer, but this old relic runs, and seems to work well. So, for now it will do. But I'm not sticking $40 or more into it. However, I have found on ebay some used RAM, buy it now, Two 512m sticks of 168pin - Low density - PC133 SDRAM, for about $10 incl. shipping. Although I can only use one of them, the price is right, and I'll have a spare. But I'm not 100% sure if I can use just one 512m sticks, or MUST I use TWO 256m sticks? You should scrap this machine and buy a new one. This machine can't run amy modern Applications and if the machine is for some serious work then it is time to get a new one. As soon as I receive your check in the mail, I'll rush out to buy a new one..... Let me know when you send it! But if it comes with Vista or Win 7 or 8, I'd have to format the HD to install XP. I have no use for any MS OS newer than XP. Then again, if I was to buy a new computer, I'd likely buy a Macintosh. I'm tired of trying to keep up with MS upgrades, and the OSs they quit supporting. All the major brands have good deals on machines with minimum 4GB RAM and Windows 8/8.1 preloaded. Go an get it and you will be amazed at the efficiency of these new machines in terms of speed and energy consumption. I~t will pay itself off in two years time and you will become employable with latest knowledge of Windows . |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 04:55:22 -0600, BillW50 wrote:
Really? Personally I like my older machines much better. The ones from the 2006/7 era with dual cores are my favorites. They can run XP, Vista, 7, and 8 just fine. Newer machines can't run all of those versions. Plus it is harder and harder to get 32 bit Windows in newer machines. They all seem to want to push the 64 bit versions. Those 64 bit versions are worthless to me, since all of my software is either 16 or 32 bit. Heck this machine is less than 2 years old and I rather use my older machines myself. These newer machines can't even play and record video as well as my XP machines can. And quite frankly, these newer Windows versions are not very special either. As I could be running XP just as well and in some cases better off. :-) -- Bill I run almost ALL older software. Some is still Dos or Win3.x based, most is for Win9x. I only had one dos prograsm thast refused to work in Win2000, but it does work in XP..... I own a computer to USE IT, not to keep upgrading it, and have to keep relearning the software. I still prefer my old Win98 setup, and use that most of the time. It does everything I need, except for web browsing. There are no browsers that work right in 98 anymore. I blame that HTML5 and the overuse of scripts for that problem.... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:32:43 -0500, Paul wrote:
I answered your question in a previous posting. 815E chipset (which is an 815 with an ICH2 Southbridge) has an artificial limitation of 512MB. Intel did that for market differentiation, so the 815 was intended for "value" platforms. This is different than VIA Technology of the day, who did not mind it if a value computer supported 1.5GB total. Thanks Paul. I must have missed this in another post. I did check out what you suggested and think I haev it under control now (I hope). Thanks 4 your help! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
MUST I use TWO Memory Sticks?
In message , BillW50
writes: In , David H. Lipman typed: Well, he could probably get by ok with 512MB if he's using XP (assuming his CPU speed is at least halfway decent). I hesitate to think what running XP on 256MB would be like. :-) Painful (and that's SP2). I watched my neighbour use it, and it spent so much time swapping ... A system with a Max RAM 512MB is just a boat anchor. It mights say it supports WinXP but it was "really designed for" Win9x/ME, NT4 and Win2K. I wouldn't go that far. Sure I find XP with 1GB runs really well for itself. And sure XP with 512MB will do some amount of noticeable swapping. But I won't call it a boat anchor. What did the OP say This (large netbook, SP3) came with 1G, and I rarely found myself using more than about 7xxM, so it was well over a year before I got round to fitting (changing it to - one stick only) the 2G I'd bought at the time (I thought XP would be happier in 2G). Of course, I detected very little difference. Even now, I only just top the 1G - 1.03 at the moment - and that's because I tend to leave lots of tabs open (currently 49 or 50) in Firefox. The old 256M machine (Dell Optiplex GX1), which my neighbour gave me when I finally persuaded her to get something newer, is now to my surprise running quite sweetly - with SP3 - with me having put the RAM up to 640 (according to Dell it can't use bigger than 256M sticks; I bought a couple for 8.99 pounds). something like 20 bucks to beef it up with two 256MB used RAM cards? To me that is well worth it if it means saving hundreds of dollars on something newer. Yes, I'd agree, though it's getting marginal; someone at work's selling a laptop with 2G/40G/dual core for 50 pounds. Apart from the drive size, it's a good machine! Giving some more thought, a computer that can handle 512MB of RAM I would guess would be a Celeron 400MHz or better. That would be plenty for XP. Although a computer of that vintage could have as little as a 6GB hard drive. That would be very tight for XP SP2. Something like 30 or 60GB would be much better. So that might add some extra expense. But I could be satisfied with such a system for the most part. ;-) This old Dell is indeed a 400 MHz, and a 6G drive! I _am_ thinking of upping the drive (with one I have - not buying one), though at the moment I'm finding it interesting to see how well it works with just the 6G. (I'd always thought of an XP system as needing at least 30-40G for just the OS and software; I partitioned this machine to have 30G for C and keep all my data on D. FWIW, after several years of use, I've used 23G, though the last 2+ G are WSUSOffline's downloads from the last week or so). The old Dell doesn't seem to suffer from only having the 400 MHz processor; granted, I haven't tried playing videos on it yet. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book. -Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator and writer (106-43 BCE) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|