Dell 780 Problem:

Mark Twain wrote:
I tried to do a memtest:

http://i67.tinypic.com/5wh0g8.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/2cnbn5z.jpg

http://i63.tinypic.com/2hq9fex.jpg

http://i65.tinypic.com/2ic44et.jpg

http://i66.tinypic.com/2rducjp.jpg

http://i65.tinypic.com/2ujnh9s.jpg


I restarted the 780 with the CD inside
but it took me to the sign-in page. I
tried it again and the same thing.

Robert

So that means your boot order isn't trying
the CD first ?

Some BIOS screens say

"Press any key to boot from CD"

and you can press some key within the timeout
period to boot from the CD.

But if the CD isn't in the boot order, it
never even gets tried.

If you can get into the BIOS setup screens,
you might be able to figure out how
to put the CD first in the boot order.
The CD only gets considered if there
is media in the tray.

Paul

Mark Twain wrote:
http://i64.tinypic.com/5dld7o.jpg

http://i64.tinypic.com/95ydg7.jpg


Robert

You don't have your file extensions turned
on in the File Explorer display. The file
you downloaded is .iso.zip and once you click
that, there is a .iso inside it that you copy
out into your downloads.

You can learn how to allow file extensions
to be seen, using the info here.

https://www.sevenforums.com/tutorial...hide-show.html

It must have worked properly, because IMGBurn
started burning it.

Paul

I do hear the CD engage like it's going
to fire up but it doesn't. It takes me to
the sign-in page and I can hear the drive
dis-engage.

Robert

Here's my folder options:

http://i67.tinypic.com/4kdv1y.jpg

Robert

As I said, we'll go with your recommendations...
taking into account the heat issue,.. it's your
call. If you feel 4 is OK then we'll do 4GB ,..

Thanks,
Robert

All this computer spec's etc. stuff I'm getting from you and
reading and trying to keep up. Some of it I understand but
others I need to re-read ,........this is not my forte.

this didn't open ,.. http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/prodbrief/320665.pdf

It sounds as if the 16GB of DDR2 is faster than 8GB of DDR3
but what is the best option for me? I already have 4GB of DDR3,.
could I have say 6GB? or do they have to be paired ? If so, then
that would be a good compromise in increasing RAMM and also
taking into account the heat factor. What do you think? If 6 isn't
possible then stay with 4GB or add 4GB giving me eight? Which
would you choose?


http://www.crucial.com/ProductDispla...toreId=1015 1

http://www.crucial.com/ProductDispla...toreId=1015 1


From what you say my computer isn't even using 1GB of 2GB
and it has 4GB. So why would others want to add 16GB then? Is
it for gaming? What could possibly use that much RAMM ? I do
use and have allot of photo's etc.. so maybe it helps in that
respect? I agree FF is a hog,.. maybe I should return to Explorer?

Hmmmm so they did get it to work with 16GB using Crucial

Understood about testing new memory .

Mark Twain wrote:
Here's my folder options:

http://i67.tinypic.com/4kdv1y.jpg

Robert

Second from the bottom item:

Hide extensions for known file types

You want to *untick* that one, and click Apply.
I usually go up to the "Apply to Folders" button
and apply the style to all the folders afterwards,
so I can see the file extensions everywhere.

Microsoft really shouldn't hide the extensions
by default.

Paul

Mark Twain wrote:
I do hear the CD engage like it's going
to fire up but it doesn't. It takes me to
the sign-in page and I can hear the drive
dis-engage.

Robert

Have you been into the BIOS setup screen before ?

Perhaps you can check in there and make sure the
CD is in the order, before any hard drives.

On my machines here, a typical prioritization is

floppy
CD/DVD
hard drive #3 --- depends on what one is the "normal" one
#1
#2

By putting the floppy and cd first, if there
is any media in them, it boots, and if there
is no media in either device, the hard drive
boots as normal. Some hardware comes set up that
way by default.

Paul

Mark Twain wrote:
All this computer spec's etc. stuff I'm getting from you and
reading and trying to keep up. Some of it I understand but
others I need to re-read ,........this is not my forte.

this didn't open ,.. http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/prodbrief/320665.pdf

It sounds as if the 16GB of DDR2 is faster than 8GB of DDR3
but what is the best option for me? I already have 4GB of DDR3,.
could I have say 6GB? or do they have to be paired ? If so, then
that would be a good compromise in increasing RAMM and also
taking into account the heat factor. What do you think? If 6 isn't
possible then stay with 4GB or add 4GB giving me eight? Which
would you choose?


http://www.crucial.com/ProductDispla...toreId=1015 1

http://www.crucial.com/ProductDispla...toreId=1015 1


From what you say my computer isn't even using 1GB of 2GB
and it has 4GB. So why would others want to add 16GB then? Is
it for gaming? What could possibly use that much RAMM ? I do
use and have allot of photo's etc.. so maybe it helps in that
respect? I agree FF is a hog,.. maybe I should return to Explorer?

Hmmmm so they did get it to work with 16GB using Crucial

Understood about testing new memory .

Your first document, why are you looking for that one ?

That's a product brief for the Q45 chipset of the 780.

*******

Well, you asked for the "maximum upgrade" possible, and
as far as I can tell, that is 4x4GB of DDR3 on the Optiplex 780.

I didn't get a status back on your findings for your 2x2GB
existing DIMMs on the 780. You claimed they were both working,
and with both of them plugged in, you were going to run a memtest.

Only at the moment, your memtest CD isn't working.

Which is possibly a boot order thing, to be corrected
in the BIOS setup screen.

So, how is it going ? Is your existing test work complete ?

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
Microsoft really shouldn't hide the extensions
by default.

Paul

And we've been saying this since at least '9x.

Has there been any indication of them changing this default - maybe in
Windows 10.xxx? (I know they've said 10 is the "last" Windows; in
practice, therefore, future versions will be 10.9.9.9....)

The original _reason_ for hiding extensions (even having the _option_ to
do so) - presumably to avoid confusing the poor dumb users - was mostly
superseded when malware started to use double extensions, and isn't
really valid since they introduced the change in (I think) 7 whereby
"rename" defaults to no longer highlighting the extension.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'm a self-made man, thereby demonstrating once again the perils of unskilled
labor..." - Harlan Ellison

In message , Mark
Twain writes:
[]
It sounds as if the 16GB of DDR2 is faster than 8GB of DDR3
but what is the best option for me? I already have 4GB of DDR3,.
could I have say 6GB? or do they have to be paired ? If so, then
that would be a good compromise in increasing RAMM and also
taking into account the heat factor. What do you think? If 6 isn't
possible then stay with 4GB or add 4GB giving me eight? Which
would you choose?

(I thought 32-bit XP couldn't use more than 4G anyway?) If you _can_ use
it, then almost any speed of RAM will be noticeably faster than not
having enough of it such that your system is paging to disc ...
[]
From what you say my computer isn't even using 1GB of 2GB
and it has 4GB. So why would others want to add 16GB then? Is
it for gaming? What could possibly use that much RAMM ? I do
use and have allot of photo's etc.. so maybe it helps in that
respect? I agree FF is a hog,.. maybe I should return to Explorer?
[]
.... but if (it's what _you_ observe, in task manager) you're only using
1-2G and have 4, then adding more won't make any difference.

_Having_ a lot of photos etc. doesn't affect RAM requirements. Even
_working with_ the majority of photos won't use that much RAM, unless
you're talking _very_ large images and doing a _lot_ with them (many
layers in some sophisticated image editing software). Videos, on the
other hand, _do_ need lots of RAM to work on (though not to just play).
[Audio files _can_ get big too, though usually less so - and again it's
really only if you're working with them, rather than just playing them.]
Firefox _does_ seem to be a _bit_ of a hog, though I'm used to seeing it
about 700M to 1.xG with about twentysomething tabs open - and restarting
it has always dropped its usage if I think it's getting close (I only
have the maximum of 2G in this machine, and sometimes with both Firefox
and Chrome open it gets around the limit - but restarting FF cures it).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... the pleasure of the mind is an amazing thing. My life has been driven by
the satisfaction of curiosity. - Jeremy Paxman (being interviewed by Anne
Widdecombe), Radio Times, 2-8 July 2011.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mark
Twain writes:
[]
It sounds as if the 16GB of DDR2 is faster than 8GB of DDR3
but what is the best option for me? I already have 4GB of DDR3,.
could I have say 6GB? or do they have to be paired ? If so, then
that would be a good compromise in increasing RAMM and also
taking into account the heat factor. What do you think? If 6 isn't
possible then stay with 4GB or add 4GB giving me eight? Which
would you choose?

(I thought 32-bit XP couldn't use more than 4G anyway?) If you _can_ use
it, then almost any speed of RAM will be noticeably faster than not
having enough of it such that your system is paging to disc ...
[]
From what you say my computer isn't even using 1GB of 2GB
and it has 4GB. So why would others want to add 16GB then? Is
it for gaming? What could possibly use that much RAMM ? I do
use and have allot of photo's etc.. so maybe it helps in that
respect? I agree FF is a hog,.. maybe I should return to Explorer?
[]
... but if (it's what _you_ observe, in task manager) you're only using
1-2G and have 4, then adding more won't make any difference.

_Having_ a lot of photos etc. doesn't affect RAM requirements. Even
_working with_ the majority of photos won't use that much RAM, unless
you're talking _very_ large images and doing a _lot_ with them (many
layers in some sophisticated image editing software). Videos, on the
other hand, _do_ need lots of RAM to work on (though not to just play).
[Audio files _can_ get big too, though usually less so - and again it's
really only if you're working with them, rather than just playing them.]
Firefox _does_ seem to be a _bit_ of a hog, though I'm used to seeing it
about 700M to 1.xG with about twentysomething tabs open - and restarting
it has always dropped its usage if I think it's getting close (I only
have the maximum of 2G in this machine, and sometimes with both Firefox
and Chrome open it gets around the limit - but restarting FF cures it).

The OP now owns two Windows 7 machines.

The Optiplex 8500 has a fair amount of RAM (well above 4GB).

The Optiplex 780 (a refurb that likely originated from Joy Systems),
has 4GB of RAM.

The Optiplex 780 has a Q45 chipset from the LGA775 era
(memory controller in Northbridge), while the Optiplex 8500
has a PCH (Southbridge) called H77, and the memory controller
on that one is right on the processor.

For normal office tasks, 4GB should be adequate. Doing media oriented
things, like Photoshop, might take more RAM. Modern digital cameras
have relatively high resolutions, so Photoshop uses more RAM than
it used to.

Firefox is a glutton - I was reading a couple days ago in some web
forum, a guy managed to burn up 26GB of RAM with Firefox. If your
web habits were that bad, then you'd never be able to buy
enough RAM to keep up. I don't know how many tabs he had open.

I've been building copies of Chromium and Firefox from source,
and the compiler is shooting up above 16GB worth of RAM
during the build (because multiple copies of the compiler
run at one time). I actually had to modify the build to
only run one copy of the compiler at a time, so it would
finish.

You can always think up excuses to buy more RAM, but
you have to remain realistic about whether they're
really all that necessary.

Paul

I tried using the CD on the 780 again but it still
keeps going to the sign-in page.

I unticked/applied the ' Hide extensions for known file types'

I checked the boot sequence:

Onboard or USB Floppy drive
USB Device
HUA721075KLA330 (HD?)
Onboard or USB CD-ROM Drive

I don't know why I went back to that first document,.. got lost *L*


Forget about what I said about maxing the 780 out,... I am taking
into account your concern now for the heat and also the need for
so much and whether its practical. That's why I said, I'll go with
your recommendations,.. what would you do if it were your 780?

Memtest isn't working because the CD isn't working. So how do I get
the CD to work? I'm not following you ,.. what existing test work?
We already checked all the slots. Did I miss something?

Thanks,
Robert

In message , Paul
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
(I thought 32-bit XP couldn't use more than 4G anyway?) If you _can_
use it, then almost any speed of RAM will be noticeably faster than
not having enough of it such that your system is paging to disc ...
[]
From what you say my computer isn't even using 1GB of 2GB
[]
... but if (it's what _you_ observe, in task manager) you're only
using 1-2G and have 4, then adding more won't make any difference.
_Having_ a lot of photos etc. doesn't affect RAM requirements. Even
_working with_ the majority of photos won't use that much RAM, unless
you're talking _very_ large images and doing a _lot_ with them (many
layers in some sophisticated image editing software). Videos, on the
other hand, _do_ need lots of RAM to work on (though not to just
play). [Audio files _can_ get big too, though usually less so - and
again it's really only if you're working with them, rather than just
playing them.] Firefox _does_ seem to be a _bit_ of a hog, though I'm
used to seeing it about 700M to 1.xG with about twentysomething tabs
open - and restarting it has always dropped its usage if I think it's
getting close (I only have the maximum of 2G in this machine, and
sometimes with both Firefox and Chrome open it gets around the limit
- but restarting FF cures it).

The OP now owns two Windows 7 machines.

The Optiplex 8500 has a fair amount of RAM (well above 4GB).

The Optiplex 780 (a refurb that likely originated from Joy Systems),
has 4GB of RAM.

The Optiplex 780 has a Q45 chipset from the LGA775 era
(memory controller in Northbridge), while the Optiplex 8500
has a PCH (Southbridge) called H77, and the memory controller
on that one is right on the processor.

(Ignoring the hardware limits - was I wrong about 32-bit XP only being
able to access 4G?)

For normal office tasks, 4GB should be adequate. Doing media oriented
things, like Photoshop, might take more RAM. Modern digital cameras
have relatively high resolutions, so Photoshop uses more RAM than
it used to.

(I'd have thought the main source of very big images would be full-page
scans from a say 9600 resolution scanner.)

Firefox is a glutton - I was reading a couple days ago in some web
forum, a guy managed to burn up 26GB of RAM with Firefox. If your

Wow!

web habits were that bad, then you'd never be able to buy
enough RAM to keep up. I don't know how many tabs he had open.

Indeed. I have my Firefox set - I can't remember if it's a native
setting, or one in Tab Mix Plus - to only _load_ tabs when I click on
them; it _reopens_ all the tabs I had when I closed it, but only
actually _loads_ one of them, or any other I explicitly click on. With
that philosophy, I don't think I've ever got above 1.4G.

I've been building copies of Chromium and Firefox from source,
and the compiler is shooting up above 16GB worth of RAM
during the build (because multiple copies of the compiler
run at one time). I actually had to modify the build to
only run one copy of the compiler at a time, so it would
finish.

Ah, well, compiling stuff - especially something as monstrous as Firefox
- would be another thing I can see could use all the resources you can
give it. I think my compiling days are over, but if I was going to
attempt it, I'd probably use a multicore W7 machine with lots of RAM. (I
_assume_ you can still compile to be XP-compatible on a 7 or higher
machine.)

(Why have you been building Firefox - what tweak are you wanting to
incorporate that isn't in the "published" builds? Or are you wanting to
leave something _out_, whose absence makes it faster, more secure, or
something?)

You can always think up excuses to buy more RAM, but
you have to remain realistic about whether they're
really all that necessary.

Indeed.

Paul
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... the pleasure of the mind is an amazing thing. My life has been driven by
the satisfaction of curiosity. - Jeremy Paxman (being interviewed by Anne
Widdecombe), Radio Times, 2-8 July 2011.

Besides photos I also have allot of videos,. and
links etc wouldn't more/less RAMM affect that?

Robert