Memory issues

Hi, Mariano.

Farmuse is right. It would help to know which motherboard you are
using. If it is something like a VA-503+ (since that is the most common
motherboard on this newsgroup), then the individual memory chips cannot
be larger than 16 MB. For example, if you have a 256 MB DIMM, then it
must consist of 16 chips, each of which is 16 MB. That would make it
double-sided, with 8 chips on each side.

Some motherboards have different limitations. As a general rule of
thumb, if the motherboard can support only CPUs with an FSB of 100 MHz,
then the limit is usually 16 MB/chip. If the motherboard can support
CPUs with an FSB of 133 MHz, then the limit is usually 32 MB/chip. If
the motherboard can support only 66 MHz FSB, then it varies.

Again, more information about your computer or motherboard would help,
but those are just general guidelines.

--Alex



Mariano wrote:
> I'm trying to use 512MB of PC100 DIMM modules, but i'm not managing to get
> it right. I believe it's because the memory modules i'm using are too new,
> but i'm just guessing... I've tryed a
> "very-dense-one-side-memory-chip(infineon i believe)-256MB-module" and a
> "double-side-chip(c-tech chips)-256MB-module" and both failed, but i may
> be doing something else worng... Can anybody give me some hints on this
> matter? Thanks!
>
 >> Stay informed about: Memory issues 

Alex Zorrilla wrote:
> Hi, Mariano.
>
> Farmuse is right. It would help to know which motherboard you are
> using. If it is something like a VA-503+ (since that is the most common
> motherboard on this newsgroup), then the individual memory chips cannot
> be larger than 16 MB. For example, if you have a 256 MB DIMM, then it
> must consist of 16 chips, each of which is 16 MB. That would make it
> double-sided, with 8 chips on each side.
>
> Some motherboards have different limitations. As a general rule of
> thumb, if the motherboard can support only CPUs with an FSB of 100 MHz,
> then the limit is usually 16 MB/chip. If the motherboard can support
> CPUs with an FSB of 133 MHz, then the limit is usually 32 MB/chip. If
> the motherboard can support only 66 MHz FSB, then it varies.
>

Along these same lines, right now I have 2 128-MB ECC Pc100 sdram
sticks in my VA-503+ and I want to increase my total ram as much as
I can, but I seem to dimly recall reading somewhere that it is not
useful to put more than 384MB ram on this board. Is that correct and
, if not, what is the max useful total ram I can install?

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Memory issues 

"bill" <nospam.TakeThisOut@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:a6tcf.14016$q%.8044@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
| Alex Zorrilla wrote:
| > Hi, Mariano.
| >
| > Farmuse is right. It would help to know which motherboard you are
| > using. If it is something like a VA-503+ (since that is the most
common
| > motherboard on this newsgroup), then the individual memory chips
cannot
| > be larger than 16 MB. For example, if you have a 256 MB DIMM,
then it
| > must consist of 16 chips, each of which is 16 MB. That would make
it
| > double-sided, with 8 chips on each side.
| >
| > Some motherboards have different limitations. As a general rule
of
| > thumb, if the motherboard can support only CPUs with an FSB of 100
MHz,
| > then the limit is usually 16 MB/chip. If the motherboard can
support
| > CPUs with an FSB of 133 MHz, then the limit is usually 32 MB/chip.
If
| > the motherboard can support only 66 MHz FSB, then it varies.
| >
|
| Along these same lines, right now I have 2 128-MB ECC Pc100 sdram
| sticks in my VA-503+ and I want to increase my total ram as much as
| I can, but I seem to dimly recall reading somewhere that it is not
| useful to put more than 384MB ram on this board. Is that correct and
| , if not, what is the max useful total ram I can install?
|
| Bill


256 meg is the practical limit of the mobo cache (if it has a 1 Mbyte
cache). There is technical information that reveals the "real" limit
is 255 MB. However, a k6+ cpu will overcome this limit nicely caching
the entire memory space. With the onboard k6+ CPU cache the
performance is still good beyond the memory limitations of the mobo's
memory caching subsystem.
--
Best regards,
Kyle
 >> Stay informed about: Memory issues 

Kyle is right. Of course, there is also the issue of how much memory
you use on a constant basis. If you regularly exceed 255-256 MB, then
it will still be worth adding the extra RAM, since even uncached RAM is
still faster than a swapfile on the hard drive.

On the other hand, if your regular usage is only 128 MB, then adding the
extra RAM above 256 MB may actually slow you down a little.

I believe the absolute limit for RAM on this motherboard is 768 MB.

--Alex



Kyle wrote:
> "bill" <nospam RemoveThis @nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:a6tcf.14016$q%.8044@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> | Alex Zorrilla wrote:
> | > Hi, Mariano.
> | >
> | > Farmuse is right. It would help to know which motherboard you are
> | > using. If it is something like a VA-503+ (since that is the most
> common
> | > motherboard on this newsgroup), then the individual memory chips
> cannot
> | > be larger than 16 MB. For example, if you have a 256 MB DIMM,
> then it
> | > must consist of 16 chips, each of which is 16 MB. That would make
> it
> | > double-sided, with 8 chips on each side.
> | >
> | > Some motherboards have different limitations. As a general rule
> of
> | > thumb, if the motherboard can support only CPUs with an FSB of 100
> MHz,
> | > then the limit is usually 16 MB/chip. If the motherboard can
> support
> | > CPUs with an FSB of 133 MHz, then the limit is usually 32 MB/chip.
> If
> | > the motherboard can support only 66 MHz FSB, then it varies.
> | >
> |
> | Along these same lines, right now I have 2 128-MB ECC Pc100 sdram
> | sticks in my VA-503+ and I want to increase my total ram as much as
> | I can, but I seem to dimly recall reading somewhere that it is not
> | useful to put more than 384MB ram on this board. Is that correct and
> | , if not, what is the max useful total ram I can install?
> |
> | Bill
>
>
> 256 meg is the practical limit of the mobo cache (if it has a 1 Mbyte
> cache). There is technical information that reveals the "real" limit
> is 255 MB. However, a k6+ cpu will overcome this limit nicely caching
> the entire memory space. With the onboard k6+ CPU cache the
> performance is still good beyond the memory limitations of the mobo's
> memory caching subsystem.
 >> Stay informed about: Memory issues 

Alex Zorrilla wrote:
> Kyle is right. Of course, there is also the issue of how much memory
> you use on a constant basis. If you regularly exceed 255-256 MB, then
> it will still be worth adding the extra RAM, since even uncached RAM is
> still faster than a swapfile on the hard drive.
>
> On the other hand, if your regular usage is only 128 MB, then adding the
> extra RAM above 256 MB may actually slow you down a little.
>
> I believe the absolute limit for RAM on this motherboard is 768 MB.
>
> --Alex
>
>
>
> Kyle wrote:
>
>> "bill" <nospam RemoveThis @nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:a6tcf.14016$q%.8044@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>> | Alex Zorrilla wrote:
>> | > Hi, Mariano.
>> | >
>> | > Farmuse is right. It would help to know which motherboard you are
>> | > using. If it is something like a VA-503+ (since that is the most
>> common
>> | > motherboard on this newsgroup), then the individual memory chips
>> cannot
>> | > be larger than 16 MB. For example, if you have a 256 MB DIMM,
>> then it
>> | > must consist of 16 chips, each of which is 16 MB. That would make
>> it
>> | > double-sided, with 8 chips on each side.
>> | >
>> | > Some motherboards have different limitations. As a general rule
>> of
>> | > thumb, if the motherboard can support only CPUs with an FSB of 100
>> MHz,
>> | > then the limit is usually 16 MB/chip. If the motherboard can
>> support
>> | > CPUs with an FSB of 133 MHz, then the limit is usually 32 MB/chip.
>> If
>> | > the motherboard can support only 66 MHz FSB, then it varies.
>> | >
>> |
>> | Along these same lines, right now I have 2 128-MB ECC Pc100 sdram
>> | sticks in my VA-503+ and I want to increase my total ram as much as
>> | I can, but I seem to dimly recall reading somewhere that it is not
>> | useful to put more than 384MB ram on this board. Is that correct and
>> | , if not, what is the max useful total ram I can install?
>> |
>> | Bill
>>
>>
>> 256 meg is the practical limit of the mobo cache (if it has a 1 Mbyte
>> cache). There is technical information that reveals the "real" limit
>> is 255 MB. However, a k6+ cpu will overcome this limit nicely caching
>> the entire memory space. With the onboard k6+ CPU cache the
>> performance is still good beyond the memory limitations of the mobo's
>> memory caching subsystem.

Ok, thank you gentlemen, I guess I'll stay with 256MB.
Slamming into uncached RAM on linux is like running into a patch
of concrete on an ice-skating rink.

Bill

p.s. New problem: I have had two hard drives for a long time,
partitioned as follows:

1. C [E,F,G,H] J K
2. [D]

[...] represents an extended partition.

I have a dual boot setup:

Windows 98 is on C:

Windows 2000 is on J:

(J: and K: are NTFS partitions)

Windows2000 is no problem,
but today (for the first time in a long time)
I tried to boot Windows98.

When I select Windows98 from the BOOT.INI menu,
of course, I get the Windows98 boot menu,
but when I select Normal from the Windows98 boot menu,
it takes an ***extremely*** long time to bring up the DeskTop --
and not only that, drive D is not detected, so Windows98
interprets the boot drive as

C [D,E,F,G]

which screws up the registry.

Does anyone have any clues about what might be causing this
problem?

Again, Windows2000 is working perfectly.

Thanks again,

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Memory issues 

In Windows 98, if you go to Control Panel --> System and look at the
Performance tab, does everything seem to be in order, or do you get some
message about "compatability mode"?

Also, in the Win98 Device Manager, do you see both hard drives, or only
one? Do they have the DMA checkboxes checked? Does the Device Manager
show the correct IDE controller drivers? Also, what is the "I:" drive?
A CD-ROM? Is that working correctly?

If you boot to the Win98 Safe Mode Command Prompt Only, can you access
the partitions correctly? What about from a boot diskette?

--Alex




bill wrote:
> Alex Zorrilla wrote:
>
>> Kyle is right. Of course, there is also the issue of how much memory
>> you use on a constant basis. If you regularly exceed 255-256 MB, then
>> it will still be worth adding the extra RAM, since even uncached RAM
>> is still faster than a swapfile on the hard drive.
>>
>> On the other hand, if your regular usage is only 128 MB, then adding
>> the extra RAM above 256 MB may actually slow you down a little.
>>
>> I believe the absolute limit for RAM on this motherboard is 768 MB.
>>
>> --Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> Kyle wrote:
>>
>>> "bill" <nospam RemoveThis @nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:a6tcf.14016$q%.8044@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>> | Alex Zorrilla wrote:
>>> | > Hi, Mariano.
>>> | >
>>> | > Farmuse is right. It would help to know which motherboard you are
>>> | > using. If it is something like a VA-503+ (since that is the most
>>> common
>>> | > motherboard on this newsgroup), then the individual memory chips
>>> cannot
>>> | > be larger than 16 MB. For example, if you have a 256 MB DIMM,
>>> then it
>>> | > must consist of 16 chips, each of which is 16 MB. That would make
>>> it
>>> | > double-sided, with 8 chips on each side.
>>> | >
>>> | > Some motherboards have different limitations. As a general rule
>>> of
>>> | > thumb, if the motherboard can support only CPUs with an FSB of 100
>>> MHz,
>>> | > then the limit is usually 16 MB/chip. If the motherboard can
>>> support
>>> | > CPUs with an FSB of 133 MHz, then the limit is usually 32 MB/chip.
>>> If
>>> | > the motherboard can support only 66 MHz FSB, then it varies.
>>> | >
>>> |
>>> | Along these same lines, right now I have 2 128-MB ECC Pc100 sdram
>>> | sticks in my VA-503+ and I want to increase my total ram as much as
>>> | I can, but I seem to dimly recall reading somewhere that it is not
>>> | useful to put more than 384MB ram on this board. Is that correct and
>>> | , if not, what is the max useful total ram I can install?
>>> |
>>> | Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> 256 meg is the practical limit of the mobo cache (if it has a 1 Mbyte
>>> cache). There is technical information that reveals the "real" limit
>>> is 255 MB. However, a k6+ cpu will overcome this limit nicely caching
>>> the entire memory space. With the onboard k6+ CPU cache the
>>> performance is still good beyond the memory limitations of the mobo's
>>> memory caching subsystem.
>
>
> Ok, thank you gentlemen, I guess I'll stay with 256MB.
> Slamming into uncached RAM on linux is like running into a patch
> of concrete on an ice-skating rink.
>
> Bill
>
> p.s. New problem: I have had two hard drives for a long time,
> partitioned as follows:
>
> 1. C [E,F,G,H] J K
> 2. [D]
>
> [...] represents an extended partition.
>
> I have a dual boot setup:
>
> Windows 98 is on C:
>
> Windows 2000 is on J:
>
> (J: and K: are NTFS partitions)
>
> Windows2000 is no problem,
> but today (for the first time in a long time)
> I tried to boot Windows98.
>
> When I select Windows98 from the BOOT.INI menu,
> of course, I get the Windows98 boot menu,
> but when I select Normal from the Windows98 boot menu,
> it takes an ***extremely*** long time to bring up the DeskTop --
> and not only that, drive D is not detected, so Windows98
> interprets the boot drive as
>
> C [D,E,F,G]
>
> which screws up the registry.
>
> Does anyone have any clues about what might be causing this
> problem?
>
> Again, Windows2000 is working perfectly.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Memory issues 

Alex Zorrilla wrote:
> In Windows 98, if you go to Control Panel --> System and look at the
> Performance tab, does everything seem to be in order, or do you get some
> message about "compatability mode"?
>
> Also, in the Win98 Device Manager, do you see both hard drives, or only
> one? Do they have the DMA checkboxes checked? Does the Device Manager
> show the correct IDE controller drivers? Also, what is the "I:" drive?
> A CD-ROM? Is that working correctly?
>
> If you boot to the Win98 Safe Mode Command Prompt Only, can you access
> the partitions correctly? What about from a boot diskette?
>
> --Alex
>
>

Thanks, Alex,

Looks OK today. Apparently, there is some kind of murky definitional
disagreement as between MSDOS FDISK and Linux fdisk, on the one hand,
and PowerQuest's Partition Magic on the other.

For some reason, PM insists on inserting a single-cylinder "unallocated"
first primary partition *in front of* what is supposed to be the first
primary partion on my second drive, and that prevents MSDOS/Windows98
(but not Windows 2000) from detecting it.

The only way I could find to get rid of the damn thing was to go
into Linux and use fdisk to delete both partitions from the second drive
and then create the full-size primary partition that I wanted starting
on cylinder 1. I then booted PM from floppies and formatted that
partition ane restired the contects from backup. Everthing seems to be
OK now except that it still takes Windows 30 seconds to come up compared
to its "normal" 10 seconds on my PC.

But at least I am back in business.

Thanks again.

Bill
p.s. I don't see anything about DMA access for my IDE hard drives in
Device manager. Could this be because I have them connected to a Promise
Ultra100 controller?


>
>
> bill wrote:
>
>> Alex Zorrilla wrote:
>>
>>> Kyle is right. Of course, there is also the issue of how much memory
>>> you use on a constant basis. If you regularly exceed 255-256 MB,
>>> then it will still be worth adding the extra RAM, since even uncached
>>> RAM is still faster than a swapfile on the hard drive.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if your regular usage is only 128 MB, then adding
>>> the extra RAM above 256 MB may actually slow you down a little.
>>>
>>> I believe the absolute limit for RAM on this motherboard is 768 MB.
>>>
>>> --Alex
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kyle wrote:
>>>
>>>> "bill" <nospam RemoveThis @nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:a6tcf.14016$q%.8044@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> | Alex Zorrilla wrote:
>>>> | > Hi, Mariano.
>>>> | >
>>>> | > Farmuse is right. It would help to know which motherboard you are
>>>> | > using. If it is something like a VA-503+ (since that is the most
>>>> common
>>>> | > motherboard on this newsgroup), then the individual memory chips
>>>> cannot
>>>> | > be larger than 16 MB. For example, if you have a 256 MB DIMM,
>>>> then it
>>>> | > must consist of 16 chips, each of which is 16 MB. That would make
>>>> it
>>>> | > double-sided, with 8 chips on each side.
>>>> | >
>>>> | > Some motherboards have different limitations. As a general rule
>>>> of
>>>> | > thumb, if the motherboard can support only CPUs with an FSB of 100
>>>> MHz,
>>>> | > then the limit is usually 16 MB/chip. If the motherboard can
>>>> support
>>>> | > CPUs with an FSB of 133 MHz, then the limit is usually 32 MB/chip.
>>>> If
>>>> | > the motherboard can support only 66 MHz FSB, then it varies.
>>>> | >
>>>> |
>>>> | Along these same lines, right now I have 2 128-MB ECC Pc100 sdram
>>>> | sticks in my VA-503+ and I want to increase my total ram as much as
>>>> | I can, but I seem to dimly recall reading somewhere that it is not
>>>> | useful to put more than 384MB ram on this board. Is that correct and
>>>> | , if not, what is the max useful total ram I can install?
>>>> |
>>>> | Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 256 meg is the practical limit of the mobo cache (if it has a 1 Mbyte
>>>> cache). There is technical information that reveals the "real" limit
>>>> is 255 MB. However, a k6+ cpu will overcome this limit nicely caching
>>>> the entire memory space. With the onboard k6+ CPU cache the
>>>> performance is still good beyond the memory limitations of the mobo's
>>>> memory caching subsystem.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, thank you gentlemen, I guess I'll stay with 256MB.
>> Slamming into uncached RAM on linux is like running into a patch
>> of concrete on an ice-skating rink.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> p.s. New problem: I have had two hard drives for a long time,
>> partitioned as follows:
>>
>> 1. C [E,F,G,H] J K
>> 2. [D]
>>
>> [...] represents an extended partition.
>>
>> I have a dual boot setup:
>>
>> Windows 98 is on C:
>>
>> Windows 2000 is on J:
>>
>> (J: and K: are NTFS partitions)
>>
>> Windows2000 is no problem,
>> but today (for the first time in a long time)
>> I tried to boot Windows98.
>>
>> When I select Windows98 from the BOOT.INI menu,
>> of course, I get the Windows98 boot menu,
>> but when I select Normal from the Windows98 boot menu,
>> it takes an ***extremely*** long time to bring up the DeskTop --
>> and not only that, drive D is not detected, so Windows98
>> interprets the boot drive as
>>
>> C [D,E,F,G]
>>
>> which screws up the registry.
>>
>> Does anyone have any clues about what might be causing this
>> problem?
>>
>> Again, Windows2000 is working perfectly.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Memory issues 

Hey, Bill.

It sounds like you have thing pretty much figured out, then. That's
good. I do not know that much about how Partition Magic works, but I
have seen other partitioning utilities leave a tiny "blank" partition in
the front like you describe. Sometimes, I wonder if they do this on
purpose, or whether it is by accident. At least you have gotten around it.

You have the hard drives hooked up to a Promise PCI IDE controller?
Yes, that would explain the lack of DMA checkboxes for the hard drives
in the Win98 Device Manager. This is normal behavior. Many 3rd party
controllers do this. The controller will run the drives in DMA mode.

One possibility about the 30 second pause during the Win98 boot. It may
not be the hard drive. It may a network card searching for a DHCP
server on the network. If there is no DHCP server present, Windows 98
will keep searching for a while until it gives up. One way to test this
is the assign a static IP address to network card and see if it takes
less time to boot.

--Alex




bill wrote:
> Alex Zorrilla wrote:
>
>> In Windows 98, if you go to Control Panel --> System and look at the
>> Performance tab, does everything seem to be in order, or do you get
>> some message about "compatability mode"?
>>
>> Also, in the Win98 Device Manager, do you see both hard drives, or
>> only one? Do they have the DMA checkboxes checked? Does the Device
>> Manager show the correct IDE controller drivers? Also, what is the
>> "I:" drive? A CD-ROM? Is that working correctly?
>>
>> If you boot to the Win98 Safe Mode Command Prompt Only, can you access
>> the partitions correctly? What about from a boot diskette?
>>
>> --Alex
>>
>>
>
> Thanks, Alex,
>
> Looks OK today. Apparently, there is some kind of murky definitional
> disagreement as between MSDOS FDISK and Linux fdisk, on the one hand,
> and PowerQuest's Partition Magic on the other.
>
> For some reason, PM insists on inserting a single-cylinder "unallocated"
> first primary partition *in front of* what is supposed to be the first
> primary partion on my second drive, and that prevents MSDOS/Windows98
> (but not Windows 2000) from detecting it.
>
> The only way I could find to get rid of the damn thing was to go
> into Linux and use fdisk to delete both partitions from the second drive
> and then create the full-size primary partition that I wanted starting
> on cylinder 1. I then booted PM from floppies and formatted that
> partition ane restired the contects from backup. Everthing seems to be
> OK now except that it still takes Windows 30 seconds to come up compared
> to its "normal" 10 seconds on my PC.
>
> But at least I am back in business.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Bill
> p.s. I don't see anything about DMA access for my IDE hard drives in
> Device manager. Could this be because I have them connected to a Promise
> Ultra100 controller?
>
>
>>
>>
>> bill wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Zorrilla wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kyle is right. Of course, there is also the issue of how much
>>>> memory you use on a constant basis. If you regularly exceed 255-256
>>>> MB, then it will still be worth adding the extra RAM, since even
>>>> uncached RAM is still faster than a swapfile on the hard drive.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, if your regular usage is only 128 MB, then adding
>>>> the extra RAM above 256 MB may actually slow you down a little.
>>>>
>>>> I believe the absolute limit for RAM on this motherboard is 768 MB.
>>>>
>>>> --Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kyle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "bill" <nospam.RemoveThis@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:a6tcf.14016$q%.8044@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>> | Alex Zorrilla wrote:
>>>>> | > Hi, Mariano.
>>>>> | >
>>>>> | > Farmuse is right. It would help to know which motherboard you are
>>>>> | > using. If it is something like a VA-503+ (since that is the most
>>>>> common
>>>>> | > motherboard on this newsgroup), then the individual memory chips
>>>>> cannot
>>>>> | > be larger than 16 MB. For example, if you have a 256 MB DIMM,
>>>>> then it
>>>>> | > must consist of 16 chips, each of which is 16 MB. That would make
>>>>> it
>>>>> | > double-sided, with 8 chips on each side.
>>>>> | >
>>>>> | > Some motherboards have different limitations. As a general rule
>>>>> of
>>>>> | > thumb, if the motherboard can support only CPUs with an FSB of 100
>>>>> MHz,
>>>>> | > then the limit is usually 16 MB/chip. If the motherboard can
>>>>> support
>>>>> | > CPUs with an FSB of 133 MHz, then the limit is usually 32 MB/chip.
>>>>> If
>>>>> | > the motherboard can support only 66 MHz FSB, then it varies.
>>>>> | >
>>>>> |
>>>>> | Along these same lines, right now I have 2 128-MB ECC Pc100 sdram
>>>>> | sticks in my VA-503+ and I want to increase my total ram as much as
>>>>> | I can, but I seem to dimly recall reading somewhere that it is not
>>>>> | useful to put more than 384MB ram on this board. Is that correct and
>>>>> | , if not, what is the max useful total ram I can install?
>>>>> |
>>>>> | Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 256 meg is the practical limit of the mobo cache (if it has a 1 Mbyte
>>>>> cache). There is technical information that reveals the "real" limit
>>>>> is 255 MB. However, a k6+ cpu will overcome this limit nicely caching
>>>>> the entire memory space. With the onboard k6+ CPU cache the
>>>>> performance is still good beyond the memory limitations of the mobo's
>>>>> memory caching subsystem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, thank you gentlemen, I guess I'll stay with 256MB.
>>> Slamming into uncached RAM on linux is like running into a patch
>>> of concrete on an ice-skating rink.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> p.s. New problem: I have had two hard drives for a long time,
>>> partitioned as follows:
>>>
>>> 1. C [E,F,G,H] J K
>>> 2. [D]
>>>
>>> [...] represents an extended partition.
>>>
>>> I have a dual boot setup:
>>>
>>> Windows 98 is on C:
>>>
>>> Windows 2000 is on J:
>>>
>>> (J: and K: are NTFS partitions)
>>>
>>> Windows2000 is no problem,
>>> but today (for the first time in a long time)
>>> I tried to boot Windows98.
>>>
>>> When I select Windows98 from the BOOT.INI menu,
>>> of course, I get the Windows98 boot menu,
>>> but when I select Normal from the Windows98 boot menu,
>>> it takes an ***extremely*** long time to bring up the DeskTop --
>>> and not only that, drive D is not detected, so Windows98
>>> interprets the boot drive as
>>>
>>> C [D,E,F,G]
>>>
>>> which screws up the registry.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any clues about what might be causing this
>>> problem?
>>>
>>> Again, Windows2000 is working perfectly.
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>>
>>> Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Memory issues 

Alex Zorrilla wrote:
> Hey, Bill.
>
> One possibility about the 30 second pause during the Win98 boot. It may
> not be the hard drive. It may a network card searching for a DHCP
> server on the network. If there is no DHCP server present, Windows 98
> will keep searching for a while until it gives up. One way to test this
> is the assign a static IP address to network card and see if it takes
> less time to boot.
>
> --Alex
>

Hmm, very interesting. I have a USB wireless adapter installed
but it's been a long time since I used it for anything. How can I tell
if it is looking for a DHCP server?

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Memory issues 

In general, if a network adapter is configured to automatically get an
IP address when it connects to the network, then it is searching for a
DHCP server. This is the default behavior in Windows. For a "regular"
network card, this happens during bootup. For a dialup connection, it
happens when you connect to your ISP. I am not sure how your wireless
adapter is set up.

Probably the easiest way to test this is to unplug the wireless USB
adapter before you boot the computer. Another alternative is to go into
the TCP/IP properties in the Network control panel and assign the USB
adapter a static IP address.

As you may have guessed, Windows XP and Linux are much more intelligent
in how they handle network connections than Windows 98 is. In large
part, this is because they allow you to change the IP address of an
adapter without forcing you to reboot the entire operating system.

--Alex



bill wrote:
> Alex Zorrilla wrote:
>
>> Hey, Bill.
>>
>> One possibility about the 30 second pause during the Win98 boot. It
>> may not be the hard drive. It may a network card searching for a
>> DHCP server on the network. If there is no DHCP server present,
>> Windows 98 will keep searching for a while until it gives up. One way
>> to test this is the assign a static IP address to network card and see
>> if it takes less time to boot.
>>
>> --Alex
>>
>
> Hmm, very interesting. I have a USB wireless adapter installed
> but it's been a long time since I used it for anything. How can I tell
> if it is looking for a DHCP server?
>
> Bill
>
 >> Stay informed about: Memory issues