Gomez Posted January 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 I am attempting to upgrade to 1GB of RAM in WinME. Every time I install even just one 512MB board, I get a windows protection error or lockups during start up. Last time I saw this behaviour was when Win95 didn't like my AMD K6-2 450 (due to the 300 MHz lock on Win95A/B)...Any ideas?Profile info is below, for those who are willing to help...If it comes down to it, I am willing to upgrade to XP. But I would rather stick it out here in ME land for as long as possible (system is extremely STABLE). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kush Posted January 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 Only XP will recognize that much RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gomez Posted January 15, 2002 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 Not according to a number of websites I've read. Not to mention several people I know have work systems with that much.If I weren't on my wife's computer ATM, I'd post the links to the websites....EDIT: Best Memory management link I've come acrossAlso, I'm even just trying 512MB. This much I /know/ will work on Win98SE and ME. Yet, I can't get it to operate. And should do so fairly easily.Oh, and FYI, it's PC133 SDRAM. 2 512MB boards. Gah, why does MS make an OS that doesn't recognize extra RAM? Mac OS 7 (1990ish) could handle 1GB of RAM easily, yet WinME can't? *goes to reinstall one of his 64MB boards so he can get off his wife's computer*[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Gomez ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gomez Posted January 15, 2002 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 Correction...I have a faulty board. One of my two 512 MB boards is screwed. Go figure. I'm now running on 512MB (the working board).Now I just have to tweak my system to utilize it better... And get another board Disregard, unless you have additional info I might need, like good mem tweak sites or get XP for even greater stability than ME....Stuff like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallion Posted January 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 WinMe will not use the full 1gig of RAM.XP requires a patch to use 512meg RAM. Access to anything greater that 512meg is questionable.Win2K Server will access 1gig RAM and Win2k Advanced server will access 4gig RAM - if the proper reg hacks are implemented.Name your poison and swallow that bitter pill TTFN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gomez Posted January 15, 2002 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 quote:XP requires a patch to use 512meg RAM. Access to anything greater that 512meg is questionable.Ack! That's horrible! Basically, that means that 2000 and ME are really the best OSes as far as memory usage. Unless XP somehow uses memory MUCH MUCH MUCH more efficiently, which I doubt. This is MS we're talking about after all...EDIT: found this on MS knowledge base... quote:Windows XP Professional for 64-bit platforms supports 16 GB of memoryOf course, this only applies to Itanium processor machines...Which, I most certainly do NOT have.Too bad [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Gomez ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREG MILLER Posted January 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 For future referrences go HereThe ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 tweak does cut down on the size of the swap file, and I am running happily with 512mb. As always though, YMMV! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kk7gw Posted January 18, 2002 Report Share Posted January 18, 2002 I hate to correct people, but as an IT person deploying XP, I have to chime in.What Gallion said is incorrect. XP is completely based off the Windows 2000 kernel, and will recognize and support 4 GB of RAM. Windows 95/98/ME have been hamstrung without tweaks at anything above 512 MB, but XP has NOTHING to do with those operating systems. XP will support 4 GB just fine.How do I know? My development machine at work is running XP Pro with 1 GB of RAM, with no hacks, no regkey tweaks, just the stock installation.My company also is beta-testing the next version of Windows servers, currently called .Net server. We have an 8 processor machine that has 3+ GB of RAM, again, the OS (it's essentially XP server) detected it all just fine.Please tell me you really meant to say ME doesn't like anything about 512 MB, because that would be accurate.If you look at the version strings of the files in XP's system directory, you'll notice a pattern: 5.1. That's because it is based off of NT 5 (Windows 2000). Not 95/98/ME.Not meant as a flame, but I hate seeing misinformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gomez Posted January 18, 2002 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2002 Actually, I appreciate it. I was thinking that XP was pathetic with only 512MB...Means I'm not downgrading, just so that I can play BCM XP1 (this also serves as a new sig test) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallion Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Detecting the amount of memory and using that same amount of memory are two different things. W2K A-Server will detect up to 16gb of RA, where as actual memory usage is more around 4gig - ONLY IF 4GT is activated (aka reg hack) in the registry file.XP-P will detect the amount of RAM you stated kk7gw. However, the reg hack/patch I eluded to earlier is what allows applications to access the 512mb of RAM.Big difference between amount of RAM an OS supports/detects and hte amount of RAM that applications running on that OS can access.Blame the misinformation on faulty M$ coding and documentation practices TTFN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanethian Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 quote:Originally posted by kk7gw: What Gallion said is incorrect. XP is completely based off the Windows 2000 kernel, and will recognize and support 4 GB of RAM. Windows 95/98/ME have been hamstrung without tweaks at anything above 512 MB, but XP has NOTHING to do with those operating systems. XP will support 4 GB just fine.English people are lucky The Italian versions of Windows XP are bugged and have problems with more than 512mb of RAM... well... uhmmm... i hope they'll fix the problem before this summer cause i need more RAM and i HAVE TO upgrade to XP.[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Vanethian ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now