Upgrade from 256mb to 512mb

[Benjurs]

Dear all,

I have been toying with this thought for a while. I own a Dell PC which I brought whilst working in the US. To get it working over here I had to buy a transformer for about £30 but that's another story!

Anyway I have regularly been told that upgrading the RAM is very easy and cheap. Does anyone have any tricks/traps in buying the memory here in the UK. Is one supplier better than another? Does it matter that it's a US Dell vs a UK computer?

As you can see I am a little confused and I get even more so when I try to research it on the web!

Thanks for any comments

Cheers

Benjurs

[touch&go]

I think you will have to go on to the Dell site and buy it off them, they offer other brands of ram on the site at a lower price, I tried to use non branded ram last year on my Dell but it didn't work,

[Flybywyre]

I have a Dell computer that had 64mb of RAM. I decided to upgrade with a further 216mb and go on to Broadband. Best thing I ever did, goes like rocket now.
For the Memory I used a company Crucial. They have an excellent web site full of tips and advice and choosing the type of memory was simple due to the information and help available on their site.

www.crucial.com/uk (www.crucial.co.uk)

Ordered it 14:15 on a Wednesday and it was here 09:30 next morning.

Regards
FBW

[18-Wheeler]

I'm typing this on my Dell, which I took from 128meg to 256meg.
I talked with a very practical tech assistant about upgrading the memory and hard drive (went from 10gig to 30gig) and he said that any 9.5mm HD would fit just fine, but for the memory the Dell's needed specific Dell memory. So you have to fork out the cash and just buy it from them.

[Flybywyre]

Dell's don't need "specific" memory, which is clear from my previous post. However the motherboard operating your Dell may require a specific type of memory, it may also require it in different modules e.g. If you want to increase the memory to 512mb you would require 4 x 128mb and not 2 x 256. Also some boards will not allow you to mix unequal amounts. When I added mine I left in the original 64kb (but not in the same bank) and added the 256mb block, some systems will not allow this and you would need to remove the 64mb. All this is explained very well on the Crucial website, worth reading in any case if you are interested in these sort of things.
Regards
FBW

[Background Noise]

Agree with FBW, upgraded my Dell from 64mb with non-branded memory. Only ****** was it had 2x32mb dimms and wanted to go to 128mb but 64/32/32 was not a listed option so bought a 128 dimm which worked fine - then tried the old dimms anyway and they worked fine alongside so ended up with 192 (128+32+32). Vast improvement, especially in graphics handling eg big scanned picures etc.

'Dell' specific problems came later when I upgraded further - I needed to change the case as it had dell specific cables and front panels connectors which would not fit standard motherboards.

[18-Wheeler]

Apologies, Flybywyre, I've got a bad dose of the flu and for some reason I saw the words Dell laptop.
For sure the desktops can use generic memory.

[Binoculars]

A little off topic, but just curious to know if anybody else shares this opinion: the view, expressed ad nauseam, that the best, simplest and most foolproof way of improving your system is to increase the amount of RAM, is in fact a load of cobblers to most users.

I specifically exclude those who use graphics-intensive programs and the like. I mean the average user, of whom I am a typical example, whose use consists mainly of surfing the net and using Office-type apps. I went from 128 to 256Mb of RAM and didn't notice a scintilla of difference, Mind you, I didn't notice a scrap of difference between my Celeron 433 and the Celeron 900 which replaced it after a lightning strike either. Maybe the RAM gives you the ability to have more programs open at a time, so what?

This comes back to my basic hypothesis that apart from those interested in high level graphics or similar, a Pentium 11 300Mhz does everything the average Joe needs, and all the rest is keeping up with the Joneses stuff. Or more to the point, you have to have a 1Ghz processor, a 60Gb hard drive and a squillion thingies of RAM to handle the newest version of Microsoft Office which does nothing more than my trusty Office 97 does.

Or am I being just a touch cynical?

[Flybywyre]

I went from 128 to 256Mb of RAM and didn't notice a scintilla of difference,

Got it inserted correctly ?

[Ronbmy]

Binoculars,

FBW has a valid point - has the m/b recognised the extra ram.

I specifically exclude those who use graphics-intensive programs and the like. I mean the average user, of whom I am a typical example, whose use consists mainly of surfing the net and using Office-type apps

For anyone, myself included, who uses Bill Gates Bloatware such as Windoze 98 the more ram the better. The OS loads so many programs into memory that it leaves little space for an application. It has no efficient memory management systems and as a result Windoze uses a disk swap file so that it can write part of the memory to temporary space on the disk, load data/program from the disk, work on it then save it back to the disk and reload what it originally saved. All this while you're just trying to write a letter.

The use of Orifice 97, and I still use it, can visit even more problems on your pc. If you select the standard installation then a brilliant piece of software called Fast Find is installed. This program works in the background, slowing the computer, and re-indexes the files on your hard drive. The options for this program are selectable within limits. The best option is a customised installation and deselect FF.

I would move to Linux but I could not afford to replace the software that I use. One program I use, pcb design - not graphics intensive but heavy math calcs, cost £3000+ and I would have to pay a similar amount to get a Linux version.

One day I may have to take the plunge but for now it's cheaper to use 512MB ram & leave it running while the wife takes me out for a meal.

[SLF 999]

Just to add another complication into the mix, you have to be aware that memory modules are different eg a PC100 memory module will not work in a pc that requires ddr200 memory, so its worth checking with your motherboard maker on what memory will work in the PC.

I have a system that needs pc100 but its getting increasingly difficult to get a hold of as everywhere I ask in Glasgow or Edinburgh says its now old hat !.

[Binoculars]

Thank you gentlemen for your kind suggestions. While I place myself at about 3 on the 1-10 scale of computer guru-ness, I can assure you that both my RAM sticks are PC133 SDRAM and the motherboard is completely happy with them.

To clarify my argument, which was originally painted with a fairly broad brush, I never meant it to apply to anybody who had any above-average demands of any sort, graphics, games, mathematics, whatever. I reiterate that for average Joes like myself who surf the net and use office applications, occasionally diversifying into mpegs of arthouse movies involving gratuitous nudity, I find it hard to justify anything more than, OK, let's call it a Pentium 500 for the sake of argument to include reasonably large databases.

Now I'm sure the computer magazines with their performance measuring equipment could make a mockery of my argument, but in the long run, does it matter whether your search takes one second or three seconds?

That's all I meant, really!

Ronbmy, while I know naught of Fast Find, I have never had any problems with Office97 in the five years I've been using it with Win98SE. Maybe I'm just lucky....

[Tinstaafl]

I use Office 97 too. No intention of upgrading it.

First thing I do after installing it is delete the the directory with those f#$%ing 'actors' and then remove Fast Find, the Office Toolbar.

[Ronbmy]

SLF.

I have a system that needs pc100 but its getting increasingly difficult to get a hold of as everywhere I ask in Glasgow or Edinburgh says its now old hat !.
Generic PC133 memory should do the trick. The faster gate speed will just mean that the memory will be waiting for the m/b to catch up. I've used this on a few 100MHz boards with no problems. Failing that www.scan.co.uk
They are one of the localish firms I use for parts.


Binoculars.
Now I'm sure the computer magazines with their performance measuring equipment could make a mockery of my argument, but in the long run, does it matter whether your search takes one second or three seconds?

The time difference doesn't matter as we would not realistically notice it.

As regards the Magazines...... They publish and promote what they want you to hear, see and buy. It looks good as a headline and helps to sell more copies. When you look at them they are only like the daily red tops - lacking in editorial and crammed with adverts.

Fast Find. First came across this on a friends pc that would not scandisk or defrag. FF continually writing to the disk was the cause.

The Office Toolbar, as Tinstaafl notes, is another drain on cpu time.

I only go to the lengths I do with this machine due to some of the work I do with it. When I built this, the old one had developed a m/b fault and blew the cpu, it was a top spec unit but 12 months later I bought an 'Entry level built unit' with the same spec for £265 for my wife so that she can do her clients accounts and payroll. Cheaper to buy it than build it. Very annoying.

I only replace a system when I am forced to. Examples being m/b or cpu failure and the needs of a -new- required software package. The old units that are still working are given to friends/relatives or put to other work. I still have 1 unit on data analysis for SETI and 1 on Computational Chemistry doing LigandFit with Smallpox and Cancer proteins. It's a good cause and well worth 20p per week in electricity.

[Mac the Knife]

98 is definitely happier & quicker with 256M than 128M. Main reason is that it lessens swap file useage. I tried 512M and found no real difference from 256M. 98 has problems with >512M because VCACHE runs out off address space (there are workarounds* for this but it probably isn't worth it).

Have to agree with Binos that only real power users and games freaks will notice much difference between, say, a P3/800 and a P4/2.6 [the dear old P2/233 is a bit slow (except running Linux)]. Most of the current quest for speed is driven by gamesters and the incredible games now out there.

Video card speed and quality, front-side bus speed, HDD speed and CD-ROM speed are almost more important than raw processor speed.

I only notice the P3 chugging a bit when texturising hi-resolution graphics under Paint Shop Pro and this IS irritating. Also of course when there are a lot of apps open simultaneously (but this may be more of a resource problem).

Office Pro 97 is, I have to say, a very good set of tools and the latest versions just add bulk and complexity without significant benefits. Find Fast and the Office Toolbar are real resource and cycle hogs and should be removed from the Startup folder asap.

here are many legitimate tweaks to optimise 98, some of which make a LOT of difference without destablising the system. One good way to speed things up is by the use of sensible partitioning of the primary drive to store rarely used data out of the way. The use of a second HDD for temporary internet files and windows temporary files accelerates file loading, defragging and searches no end.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

*CAUSE & WORKAROUND [some BIOSES may also have trouble with big memory]

"The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.

On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine). "

Set the MinFileCache and MaxFileCache setting in the SYSTEM.INI file to reduce the maximum amount of memory that VCache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less. Remember to save the changes to the SYSTEM.INI file and restart the system.

NOTE: The values for these settings are in kilobytes. 1024 kilobytes = 1 Megabytes

For example, if you want to create a 512-MB cache that cannot exceed 514-MB, the lines would be as follows:

[VCache]
MinFileCache=524288
MaxFileCache=526336

[noblues]

The last memory upgrade on my machine I was told by the shop that mixing DDR PC2100 (266Mhz) and DDR PC2700 (333Mhz) would not be a problem ........ It seems OK, but does anyone know if the 333Mhz then only runs at 266Mhz ????

BTW: I now have 896 Mbyte of RAM and would definetly say that its the cheapest way of gaining performance.

(RL supplies selling PC2700 DDR 512Mbyte for £42inc ).

[Binoculars]

Mac,

As it happens I have a second HDD sitting there doing nothing. How do I tell my machine to send the temporary internet files and Windows temp files in its direction?

[Mac the Knife]

Hi Binos! Note that your driveletters may/will change if you put in a second HDD. This may confuse installed programs that run off or partly off a CD (including the Windows CD). This may be more or less of a hassle depending on how happy you are hacking your system. Easiest is to have a second HDD installed and partitioned BEFORE you install Windows or anything. See http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85408

To change where IE stores temporary internet files - in IE select Tools/Internet Options/General/Temporary Internet Files/Settings/Move Folder and indicate which drive you want to use.

Changing the location of Windows temporary files is theoretically easy. In the absence of any instructions to the contrary Win 9.x automatically sets the values of the pointers TEMP and TMP in the DOS environment to C:/WINDOWS/TEMP and stuff goes there. Just include a line at the start of your AUTOEXEC.BAT file (for Win9.x) that says:

SET TEMP=D:/TEMP (or whatever)

Make sure that the disk and directory exist first - you must create a D:/TEMP directory first.

To trap boot errors you can use the line
IF EXIST D:/TEMP/NUL SET TEMP=D:/TEMP
instead if you want to be fussy.

Actually I've stopped relocating TEMP in this way because my Win98 occasionally got confused, but I've done this on other machines with no problems.

Note that for reasons known only to M$ you can't set both TEMP and TMP environmental variables in AUTOEXEC.BAT - if you try to then Win98 will ignore the line or complain.

Relocating temporary files is probably also possible in XP but I haven't explored this.

[Binoculars]

Thanks Mac. My second HDD is already installed as a slave thanks to the help received here on a previous thread I started, so I'll give your suggestion a go at some stage when I have enough alcohol-fuelled courage. :)