A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Hardware and Windows XP
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

adding memory



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old August 6th 09, 02:37 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware
L.S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default adding memory

Not to throw gas on the fire but that's the reason I ask about memory in a
WinXP newsgroup.
My older Win98se systems ran fine on 128-256 meg while XP barely functions
with the same. I still have several 32 & 64 meg sticks.

While I/we may have got off subject with the photo scanning, my original
question did, I think, pretains to the functioning of WinXP.

Sorry if I opened up a 'bucket of worms' for some on here.


"JS" @ wrote in message ...
You have a good point.

However I have used Operating Systems that
would never work with this type of memory no
matter how good the quality.

That said, it become apparent that the OS and the
Hardware are joined at the hip. Should any piece
of hardware fail and the OS may have a problem
carrying out its tasks. Should any part of the OS
get mucked up and the hardware may not function as intended.

If you go back a few years when Windows 98
was king of the hill, increasing the amount of memory
from 32MB to 64MB made a big difference in how
fast the OS and applications performed. For Win 98
128MB was the sweet spot.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"Mr. Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:07:48 +1000, "Touch Base"
wrote:


"Mr. Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:04:10 -0500, "L.S." wrote:


winxp(home).

One of my 512 memory stick went out. System only recognizes 512 instead
of
1gb. To check I took it out and tried it in another system- no go.
Here's the question and I know it's probably not correct newsgroup but
should be simple answer for you sys gurus.
The sticks are ddr333, 512meg, 184 pin. I have a extra ddr400, 1gb, 184
pin
stick.
The instruction for the MB says up to 4 gig and ddr333.

Will the ddr400 work w/o messing up system?


Why ask here? Your question has nothing to do with with OS (you did
notice the letters X and P preceeding the word Hardware in the group
title, right?)

=============================================== =========

Dear Mr Smith,

What part of XP is hardware?

Please enlighten me as to what kind of posts should be in this newsgroup?


Perhaps posts that deal with the interaction of the XP OS and the
hardware? Like driver conflicts, or questions about how to use the
hardware with the OS?

This situation is OS independent. Nobody can deny that.





Ads
  #62  
Old August 6th 09, 02:39 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware
L.S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default adding memory

Again, thanks to all for your help and suggestion. Will copy instructions
and pass on to the 'group' doing the work.


"JS" @ wrote in message ...
For 4x5 prints jpg is fine. However
for archival purposes TIFF is better.

I scan in and save as BMP and they
are huge but after the first touch up
the photo, negative or positive (slide)
is saved as TIFF.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
JS wrote:
Yep, the damage is done, as to how much the
image has degraded, it depends on the image quality
setting when you saved the photo in jpg format.
Even with the image quality set at its best or highest quality
option when you saved it, there is still some loss.


BUT that loss can be pretty negligible. Let's not oversell the
uncompressed formats (like BMP - UGH, what a disk space hog).

Do a test with PaintShopPro to see if you can
load one of your jpg files and then save it as TIFF.
Just remember what lost is lost but at least you will
not degrade the TIF image any further if you need to edit
it and save it again in TIFF format.

Check to see what PaintShopPro offers in the way
of TIFF options.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Again thanks.
We're using PaintShopPro and honestly we have saved some of the old
newsprint and photos we're putting on our web site in .jpg.

Question- after a photo is saved as a .jpg, can it be opened and
resaved
as a tiff? I know you can save it but is the damage done? I'm guessing
it's cooked but my wife wanted me to ask as she's the one heading up
this
project. I have a funny feeling why she's asking.
At least they have just started. They have over 3000 photos and 4
decades
of newsprint aritcles to work with.


"JS" @ wrote in message ...
TIFF is fine, it's a "lossless" format.
Just investigate what photo scanner
and photo editing software you plan
to use. Most software packages support
TIFF and it's various options.

For basic (non critical editing) I use
Paint .NET: http://www.getpaint.net/
(you would be amazed at what this little program can do)

For my other work it's Photoshop.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Thanks for the suggestion.
After scanning, we're burning to DVD because of limited disk space at
this time.
Most of the photos we're doing in tiff.
What do you suggest?

Hope folks don't mind we're getting off subject..

"JS" @ wrote in message
...
Be prepared to eat up drive space
once you start scanning those photos.

And as you most likely already know
you should not save a scanned photo in
jpg format as it is compressed and loses
image quality. Worse yet, open a jpg image,
edit/touch up the photo and resave as jpg
and there goes some more image quality.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
That's what this system is used for, scanning.
I donated it to our local Historical Society, which I'm the Prez.
We stated a project to scan 'several' old photos, docs and start a
data base of the old documents.
It's a older Biostar MB with a AMD Sempron 2600+(1.83Ghz) processor
with a 80 gig HD so the added memory should help it out some. We
have
WinXP, DVD, Office 2k, PSPro, Nero, DVD burner and a USB scanner.
It's got an AGP 64meg video card which may be our next upgrade.
Being a 'normal' HS, we don't have the funds to purchase the latest
and greatest.
Several of our members have boxes of computer junk laying around so
we've done pretty good with upgrading this system. So far, it
hasn't
cost us anything but some time. It's a good learning experience
also,
with you and everyone elses help/suggestions.


"JS" @ wrote in message
...
Unless you using some type of high end application
any additional memory will go to waste. I have 2GB
in one of my systems, but I do photo scanning and editing.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Sure did.
I'm looking around for another 1gb DDR400 to match the one in it
but
so far, so good.
Seems stable enough.

Thanks for everyones help/suggestions.


"JS" @ wrote in message
...
You lucked out :-)

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
update.
Finally caught the Post(startup) after 3 resets and it's
reporting
dual channel.
Guessing the MB is ok with different size and speed of sticks.
Go figure.......


"L.S." wrote in message
...
Thanks. I installed the 1gb stick and the system is picking it
up(start-CP-system) but not sure how to check on dual
channeling...
May have goofed as I installed in slot A (1gb) and slot B
(512)
instead of using the 2 slot B's..

Should I change it?



"JS" @ wrote in message
...
Dual channel usually requires "Matched" pairs
of memory. Different brands or different sizes
will most likely cause a fall back to single channel.

So use the first two slots as your two sticks are
not matched.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Hey, sorry guys. I didn't mean to spark an argument here. I
stated that this may not be the 'best' newsgroup to ask the
question but I figured it would be an easy answer for those
on
here.
Two points that may concern hardware was whether WinXP would
function ok with the different type of stick installed. I
have
noticed a slow down with only one 512 stick operating which
does affect the operation of my WinXP system. Plus my MB
instructions suggests "For Dual-channel DDR (128-bit) high
performance, at least 2 or more DIMM modules must be
installed." That's the reason for asking if I can install
two
different sticks. Otherwise I'd just install the
1meg(DDR400)
and take out the 512(DDR333).
I'm still not sure is installing the two stick will give me
the
128-bit if there are different size.

Anyway, sorry if I ruffled your feather Mr. Smith.


"Touch Base" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:04:10 -0500, "L.S."
wrote:


winxp(home).

One of my 512 memory stick went out. System only
recognizes
512 instead of
1gb. To check I took it out and tried it in another
system- no
go.
Here's the question and I know it's probably not correct
newsgroup but
should be simple answer for you sys gurus.
The sticks are ddr333, 512meg, 184 pin. I have a extra
ddr400,
1gb, 184 pin
stick.
The instruction for the MB says up to 4 gig and ddr333.

Will the ddr400 work w/o messing up system?


Why ask here? Your question has nothing to do with with OS
(you did
notice the letters X and P preceeding the word Hardware in
the
group
title, right?)

================================================== ======

Dear Mr Smith,

What part of XP is hardware?

Please enlighten me as to what kind of posts should be in
this
newsgroup?


--
Regards,
Touch Base







  #63  
Old August 6th 09, 02:39 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware
L.S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default adding memory


Again, thanks to all for your help and suggestion. Will copy instructions
and pass on to the 'group' doing the work.


"JS" @ wrote in message ...
For 4x5 prints jpg is fine. However
for archival purposes TIFF is better.

I scan in and save as BMP and they
are huge but after the first touch up
the photo, negative or positive (slide)
is saved as TIFF.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
JS wrote:
Yep, the damage is done, as to how much the
image has degraded, it depends on the image quality
setting when you saved the photo in jpg format.
Even with the image quality set at its best or highest quality
option when you saved it, there is still some loss.


BUT that loss can be pretty negligible. Let's not oversell the
uncompressed formats (like BMP - UGH, what a disk space hog).

Do a test with PaintShopPro to see if you can
load one of your jpg files and then save it as TIFF.
Just remember what lost is lost but at least you will
not degrade the TIF image any further if you need to edit
it and save it again in TIFF format.

Check to see what PaintShopPro offers in the way
of TIFF options.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Again thanks.
We're using PaintShopPro and honestly we have saved some of the old
newsprint and photos we're putting on our web site in .jpg.

Question- after a photo is saved as a .jpg, can it be opened and
resaved
as a tiff? I know you can save it but is the damage done? I'm guessing
it's cooked but my wife wanted me to ask as she's the one heading up
this
project. I have a funny feeling why she's asking.
At least they have just started. They have over 3000 photos and 4
decades
of newsprint aritcles to work with.


"JS" @ wrote in message ...
TIFF is fine, it's a "lossless" format.
Just investigate what photo scanner
and photo editing software you plan
to use. Most software packages support
TIFF and it's various options.

For basic (non critical editing) I use
Paint .NET: http://www.getpaint.net/
(you would be amazed at what this little program can do)

For my other work it's Photoshop.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Thanks for the suggestion.
After scanning, we're burning to DVD because of limited disk space at
this time.
Most of the photos we're doing in tiff.
What do you suggest?

Hope folks don't mind we're getting off subject..

"JS" @ wrote in message
...
Be prepared to eat up drive space
once you start scanning those photos.

And as you most likely already know
you should not save a scanned photo in
jpg format as it is compressed and loses
image quality. Worse yet, open a jpg image,
edit/touch up the photo and resave as jpg
and there goes some more image quality.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
That's what this system is used for, scanning.
I donated it to our local Historical Society, which I'm the Prez.
We stated a project to scan 'several' old photos, docs and start a
data base of the old documents.
It's a older Biostar MB with a AMD Sempron 2600+(1.83Ghz) processor
with a 80 gig HD so the added memory should help it out some. We
have
WinXP, DVD, Office 2k, PSPro, Nero, DVD burner and a USB scanner.
It's got an AGP 64meg video card which may be our next upgrade.
Being a 'normal' HS, we don't have the funds to purchase the latest
and greatest.
Several of our members have boxes of computer junk laying around so
we've done pretty good with upgrading this system. So far, it
hasn't
cost us anything but some time. It's a good learning experience
also,
with you and everyone elses help/suggestions.


"JS" @ wrote in message
...
Unless you using some type of high end application
any additional memory will go to waste. I have 2GB
in one of my systems, but I do photo scanning and editing.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Sure did.
I'm looking around for another 1gb DDR400 to match the one in it
but
so far, so good.
Seems stable enough.

Thanks for everyones help/suggestions.


"JS" @ wrote in message
...
You lucked out :-)

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
update.
Finally caught the Post(startup) after 3 resets and it's
reporting
dual channel.
Guessing the MB is ok with different size and speed of sticks.
Go figure.......


"L.S." wrote in message
...
Thanks. I installed the 1gb stick and the system is picking it
up(start-CP-system) but not sure how to check on dual
channeling...
May have goofed as I installed in slot A (1gb) and slot B
(512)
instead of using the 2 slot B's..

Should I change it?



"JS" @ wrote in message
...
Dual channel usually requires "Matched" pairs
of memory. Different brands or different sizes
will most likely cause a fall back to single channel.

So use the first two slots as your two sticks are
not matched.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Hey, sorry guys. I didn't mean to spark an argument here. I
stated that this may not be the 'best' newsgroup to ask the
question but I figured it would be an easy answer for those
on
here.
Two points that may concern hardware was whether WinXP would
function ok with the different type of stick installed. I
have
noticed a slow down with only one 512 stick operating which
does affect the operation of my WinXP system. Plus my MB
instructions suggests "For Dual-channel DDR (128-bit) high
performance, at least 2 or more DIMM modules must be
installed." That's the reason for asking if I can install
two
different sticks. Otherwise I'd just install the
1meg(DDR400)
and take out the 512(DDR333).
I'm still not sure is installing the two stick will give me
the
128-bit if there are different size.

Anyway, sorry if I ruffled your feather Mr. Smith.


"Touch Base" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:04:10 -0500, "L.S."
wrote:


winxp(home).

One of my 512 memory stick went out. System only
recognizes
512 instead of
1gb. To check I took it out and tried it in another
system- no
go.
Here's the question and I know it's probably not correct
newsgroup but
should be simple answer for you sys gurus.
The sticks are ddr333, 512meg, 184 pin. I have a extra
ddr400,
1gb, 184 pin
stick.
The instruction for the MB says up to 4 gig and ddr333.

Will the ddr400 work w/o messing up system?


Why ask here? Your question has nothing to do with with OS
(you did
notice the letters X and P preceeding the word Hardware in
the
group
title, right?)

================================================== ======

Dear Mr Smith,

What part of XP is hardware?

Please enlighten me as to what kind of posts should be in
this
newsgroup?


--
Regards,
Touch Base







  #64  
Old August 6th 09, 02:46 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware
JS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,475
Default adding memory

You're welcome.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Again, thanks to all for your help and suggestion. Will copy instructions
and pass on to the 'group' doing the work.


"JS" @ wrote in message ...
For 4x5 prints jpg is fine. However
for archival purposes TIFF is better.

I scan in and save as BMP and they
are huge but after the first touch up
the photo, negative or positive (slide)
is saved as TIFF.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
JS wrote:
Yep, the damage is done, as to how much the
image has degraded, it depends on the image quality
setting when you saved the photo in jpg format.
Even with the image quality set at its best or highest quality
option when you saved it, there is still some loss.

BUT that loss can be pretty negligible. Let's not oversell the
uncompressed formats (like BMP - UGH, what a disk space hog).

Do a test with PaintShopPro to see if you can
load one of your jpg files and then save it as TIFF.
Just remember what lost is lost but at least you will
not degrade the TIF image any further if you need to edit
it and save it again in TIFF format.

Check to see what PaintShopPro offers in the way
of TIFF options.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Again thanks.
We're using PaintShopPro and honestly we have saved some of the old
newsprint and photos we're putting on our web site in .jpg.

Question- after a photo is saved as a .jpg, can it be opened and
resaved
as a tiff? I know you can save it but is the damage done? I'm guessing
it's cooked but my wife wanted me to ask as she's the one heading up
this
project. I have a funny feeling why she's asking.
At least they have just started. They have over 3000 photos and 4
decades
of newsprint aritcles to work with.


"JS" @ wrote in message
...
TIFF is fine, it's a "lossless" format.
Just investigate what photo scanner
and photo editing software you plan
to use. Most software packages support
TIFF and it's various options.

For basic (non critical editing) I use
Paint .NET: http://www.getpaint.net/
(you would be amazed at what this little program can do)

For my other work it's Photoshop.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Thanks for the suggestion.
After scanning, we're burning to DVD because of limited disk space
at
this time.
Most of the photos we're doing in tiff.
What do you suggest?

Hope folks don't mind we're getting off subject..

"JS" @ wrote in message
...
Be prepared to eat up drive space
once you start scanning those photos.

And as you most likely already know
you should not save a scanned photo in
jpg format as it is compressed and loses
image quality. Worse yet, open a jpg image,
edit/touch up the photo and resave as jpg
and there goes some more image quality.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
That's what this system is used for, scanning.
I donated it to our local Historical Society, which I'm the Prez.
We stated a project to scan 'several' old photos, docs and start a
data base of the old documents.
It's a older Biostar MB with a AMD Sempron 2600+(1.83Ghz)
processor
with a 80 gig HD so the added memory should help it out some. We
have
WinXP, DVD, Office 2k, PSPro, Nero, DVD burner and a USB scanner.
It's got an AGP 64meg video card which may be our next upgrade.
Being a 'normal' HS, we don't have the funds to purchase the
latest
and greatest.
Several of our members have boxes of computer junk laying around
so
we've done pretty good with upgrading this system. So far, it
hasn't
cost us anything but some time. It's a good learning experience
also,
with you and everyone elses help/suggestions.


"JS" @ wrote in message
...
Unless you using some type of high end application
any additional memory will go to waste. I have 2GB
in one of my systems, but I do photo scanning and editing.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Sure did.
I'm looking around for another 1gb DDR400 to match the one in it
but
so far, so good.
Seems stable enough.

Thanks for everyones help/suggestions.


"JS" @ wrote in message
...
You lucked out :-)

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
update.
Finally caught the Post(startup) after 3 resets and it's
reporting
dual channel.
Guessing the MB is ok with different size and speed of sticks.
Go figure.......


"L.S." wrote in message
...
Thanks. I installed the 1gb stick and the system is picking
it
up(start-CP-system) but not sure how to check on dual
channeling...
May have goofed as I installed in slot A (1gb) and slot B
(512)
instead of using the 2 slot B's..

Should I change it?



"JS" @ wrote in message
...
Dual channel usually requires "Matched" pairs
of memory. Different brands or different sizes
will most likely cause a fall back to single channel.

So use the first two slots as your two sticks are
not matched.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Hey, sorry guys. I didn't mean to spark an argument here. I
stated that this may not be the 'best' newsgroup to ask the
question but I figured it would be an easy answer for those
on
here.
Two points that may concern hardware was whether WinXP
would
function ok with the different type of stick installed. I
have
noticed a slow down with only one 512 stick operating which
does affect the operation of my WinXP system. Plus my MB
instructions suggests "For Dual-channel DDR (128-bit) high
performance, at least 2 or more DIMM modules must be
installed." That's the reason for asking if I can install
two
different sticks. Otherwise I'd just install the
1meg(DDR400)
and take out the 512(DDR333).
I'm still not sure is installing the two stick will give me
the
128-bit if there are different size.

Anyway, sorry if I ruffled your feather Mr. Smith.


"Touch Base" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:04:10 -0500, "L.S."

wrote:


winxp(home).

One of my 512 memory stick went out. System only
recognizes
512 instead of
1gb. To check I took it out and tried it in another
system- no
go.
Here's the question and I know it's probably not correct
newsgroup but
should be simple answer for you sys gurus.
The sticks are ddr333, 512meg, 184 pin. I have a extra
ddr400,
1gb, 184 pin
stick.
The instruction for the MB says up to 4 gig and ddr333.

Will the ddr400 work w/o messing up system?


Why ask here? Your question has nothing to do with with
OS
(you did
notice the letters X and P preceeding the word Hardware in
the
group
title, right?)

================================================== ======

Dear Mr Smith,

What part of XP is hardware?

Please enlighten me as to what kind of posts should be in
this
newsgroup?


--
Regards,
Touch Base








  #65  
Old August 6th 09, 02:46 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware
JS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,475
Default adding memory

You're welcome.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Again, thanks to all for your help and suggestion. Will copy instructions
and pass on to the 'group' doing the work.


"JS" @ wrote in message ...
For 4x5 prints jpg is fine. However
for archival purposes TIFF is better.

I scan in and save as BMP and they
are huge but after the first touch up
the photo, negative or positive (slide)
is saved as TIFF.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
JS wrote:
Yep, the damage is done, as to how much the
image has degraded, it depends on the image quality
setting when you saved the photo in jpg format.
Even with the image quality set at its best or highest quality
option when you saved it, there is still some loss.

BUT that loss can be pretty negligible. Let's not oversell the
uncompressed formats (like BMP - UGH, what a disk space hog).

Do a test with PaintShopPro to see if you can
load one of your jpg files and then save it as TIFF.
Just remember what lost is lost but at least you will
not degrade the TIF image any further if you need to edit
it and save it again in TIFF format.

Check to see what PaintShopPro offers in the way
of TIFF options.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Again thanks.
We're using PaintShopPro and honestly we have saved some of the old
newsprint and photos we're putting on our web site in .jpg.

Question- after a photo is saved as a .jpg, can it be opened and
resaved
as a tiff? I know you can save it but is the damage done? I'm guessing
it's cooked but my wife wanted me to ask as she's the one heading up
this
project. I have a funny feeling why she's asking.
At least they have just started. They have over 3000 photos and 4
decades
of newsprint aritcles to work with.


"JS" @ wrote in message
...
TIFF is fine, it's a "lossless" format.
Just investigate what photo scanner
and photo editing software you plan
to use. Most software packages support
TIFF and it's various options.

For basic (non critical editing) I use
Paint .NET: http://www.getpaint.net/
(you would be amazed at what this little program can do)

For my other work it's Photoshop.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Thanks for the suggestion.
After scanning, we're burning to DVD because of limited disk space
at
this time.
Most of the photos we're doing in tiff.
What do you suggest?

Hope folks don't mind we're getting off subject..

"JS" @ wrote in message
...
Be prepared to eat up drive space
once you start scanning those photos.

And as you most likely already know
you should not save a scanned photo in
jpg format as it is compressed and loses
image quality. Worse yet, open a jpg image,
edit/touch up the photo and resave as jpg
and there goes some more image quality.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
That's what this system is used for, scanning.
I donated it to our local Historical Society, which I'm the Prez.
We stated a project to scan 'several' old photos, docs and start a
data base of the old documents.
It's a older Biostar MB with a AMD Sempron 2600+(1.83Ghz)
processor
with a 80 gig HD so the added memory should help it out some. We
have
WinXP, DVD, Office 2k, PSPro, Nero, DVD burner and a USB scanner.
It's got an AGP 64meg video card which may be our next upgrade.
Being a 'normal' HS, we don't have the funds to purchase the
latest
and greatest.
Several of our members have boxes of computer junk laying around
so
we've done pretty good with upgrading this system. So far, it
hasn't
cost us anything but some time. It's a good learning experience
also,
with you and everyone elses help/suggestions.


"JS" @ wrote in message
...
Unless you using some type of high end application
any additional memory will go to waste. I have 2GB
in one of my systems, but I do photo scanning and editing.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Sure did.
I'm looking around for another 1gb DDR400 to match the one in it
but
so far, so good.
Seems stable enough.

Thanks for everyones help/suggestions.


"JS" @ wrote in message
...
You lucked out :-)

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
update.
Finally caught the Post(startup) after 3 resets and it's
reporting
dual channel.
Guessing the MB is ok with different size and speed of sticks.
Go figure.......


"L.S." wrote in message
...
Thanks. I installed the 1gb stick and the system is picking
it
up(start-CP-system) but not sure how to check on dual
channeling...
May have goofed as I installed in slot A (1gb) and slot B
(512)
instead of using the 2 slot B's..

Should I change it?



"JS" @ wrote in message
...
Dual channel usually requires "Matched" pairs
of memory. Different brands or different sizes
will most likely cause a fall back to single channel.

So use the first two slots as your two sticks are
not matched.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Hey, sorry guys. I didn't mean to spark an argument here. I
stated that this may not be the 'best' newsgroup to ask the
question but I figured it would be an easy answer for those
on
here.
Two points that may concern hardware was whether WinXP
would
function ok with the different type of stick installed. I
have
noticed a slow down with only one 512 stick operating which
does affect the operation of my WinXP system. Plus my MB
instructions suggests "For Dual-channel DDR (128-bit) high
performance, at least 2 or more DIMM modules must be
installed." That's the reason for asking if I can install
two
different sticks. Otherwise I'd just install the
1meg(DDR400)
and take out the 512(DDR333).
I'm still not sure is installing the two stick will give me
the
128-bit if there are different size.

Anyway, sorry if I ruffled your feather Mr. Smith.


"Touch Base" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:04:10 -0500, "L.S."

wrote:


winxp(home).

One of my 512 memory stick went out. System only
recognizes
512 instead of
1gb. To check I took it out and tried it in another
system- no
go.
Here's the question and I know it's probably not correct
newsgroup but
should be simple answer for you sys gurus.
The sticks are ddr333, 512meg, 184 pin. I have a extra
ddr400,
1gb, 184 pin
stick.
The instruction for the MB says up to 4 gig and ddr333.

Will the ddr400 work w/o messing up system?


Why ask here? Your question has nothing to do with with
OS
(you did
notice the letters X and P preceeding the word Hardware in
the
group
title, right?)

================================================== ======

Dear Mr Smith,

What part of XP is hardware?

Please enlighten me as to what kind of posts should be in
this
newsgroup?


--
Regards,
Touch Base








  #66  
Old August 6th 09, 02:48 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware
JS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,475
Default adding memory

No bucket, just different views.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Not to throw gas on the fire but that's the reason I ask about memory in a
WinXP newsgroup.
My older Win98se systems ran fine on 128-256 meg while XP barely functions
with the same. I still have several 32 & 64 meg sticks.

While I/we may have got off subject with the photo scanning, my original
question did, I think, pretains to the functioning of WinXP.

Sorry if I opened up a 'bucket of worms' for some on here.


"JS" @ wrote in message ...
You have a good point.

However I have used Operating Systems that
would never work with this type of memory no
matter how good the quality.

That said, it become apparent that the OS and the
Hardware are joined at the hip. Should any piece
of hardware fail and the OS may have a problem
carrying out its tasks. Should any part of the OS
get mucked up and the hardware may not function as intended.

If you go back a few years when Windows 98
was king of the hill, increasing the amount of memory
from 32MB to 64MB made a big difference in how
fast the OS and applications performed. For Win 98
128MB was the sweet spot.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"Mr. Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:07:48 +1000, "Touch Base"
wrote:


"Mr. Smith" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:04:10 -0500, "L.S." wrote:


winxp(home).

One of my 512 memory stick went out. System only recognizes 512 instead
of
1gb. To check I took it out and tried it in another system- no go.
Here's the question and I know it's probably not correct newsgroup but
should be simple answer for you sys gurus.
The sticks are ddr333, 512meg, 184 pin. I have a extra ddr400, 1gb, 184
pin
stick.
The instruction for the MB says up to 4 gig and ddr333.

Will the ddr400 work w/o messing up system?


Why ask here? Your question has nothing to do with with OS (you did
notice the letters X and P preceeding the word Hardware in the group
title, right?)

============================================== ==========

Dear Mr Smith,

What part of XP is hardware?

Please enlighten me as to what kind of posts should be in this
newsgroup?

Perhaps posts that deal with the interaction of the XP OS and the
hardware? Like driver conflicts, or questions about how to use the
hardware with the OS?

This situation is OS independent. Nobody can deny that.







  #67  
Old August 6th 09, 02:48 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware
JS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,475
Default adding memory

No bucket, just different views.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"L.S." wrote in message
...
Not to throw gas on the fire but that's the reason I ask about memory in a
WinXP newsgroup.
My older Win98se systems ran fine on 128-256 meg while XP barely functions
with the same. I still have several 32 & 64 meg sticks.

While I/we may have got off subject with the photo scanning, my original
question did, I think, pretains to the functioning of WinXP.

Sorry if I opened up a 'bucket of worms' for some on here.


"JS" @ wrote in message ...
You have a good point.

However I have used Operating Systems that
would never work with this type of memory no
matter how good the quality.

That said, it become apparent that the OS and the
Hardware are joined at the hip. Should any piece
of hardware fail and the OS may have a problem
carrying out its tasks. Should any part of the OS
get mucked up and the hardware may not function as intended.

If you go back a few years when Windows 98
was king of the hill, increasing the amount of memory
from 32MB to 64MB made a big difference in how
fast the OS and applications performed. For Win 98
128MB was the sweet spot.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"Mr. Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:07:48 +1000, "Touch Base"
wrote:


"Mr. Smith" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:04:10 -0500, "L.S." wrote:


winxp(home).

One of my 512 memory stick went out. System only recognizes 512 instead
of
1gb. To check I took it out and tried it in another system- no go.
Here's the question and I know it's probably not correct newsgroup but
should be simple answer for you sys gurus.
The sticks are ddr333, 512meg, 184 pin. I have a extra ddr400, 1gb, 184
pin
stick.
The instruction for the MB says up to 4 gig and ddr333.

Will the ddr400 work w/o messing up system?


Why ask here? Your question has nothing to do with with OS (you did
notice the letters X and P preceeding the word Hardware in the group
title, right?)

============================================== ==========

Dear Mr Smith,

What part of XP is hardware?

Please enlighten me as to what kind of posts should be in this
newsgroup?

Perhaps posts that deal with the interaction of the XP OS and the
hardware? Like driver conflicts, or questions about how to use the
hardware with the OS?

This situation is OS independent. Nobody can deny that.







 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.