I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living
room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very slow
to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM, but virtual
memory is using about 200MB, plainly I need a RAM upgrade.
The motherboard is an Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity of
256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory, so
it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM. The
Asus website had no info. available and the motherboard manual is long
gone. I need advise on what RAM to buy, because there are so many types of
SIMM RAM and I have only some idea what kind of potential problems might
arise; wrong voltage, too fast, etc.
Does anyone know what kind of RAM I must buy for this motherboard so I can
achieve a 256MB RAM upgrade?
> Hi,
>
> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living
> room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very slow
> to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM, but virtual
> memory is using about 200MB, plainly I need a RAM upgrade.
>
> The motherboard is an Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity of
> 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>
> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory, so
> it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM. The
> Asus website had no info. available and the motherboard manual is long
> gone. I need advise on what RAM to buy, because there are so many types of
> SIMM RAM and I have only some idea what kind of potential problems might
> arise; wrong voltage, too fast, etc.
>
> Does anyone know what kind of RAM I must buy for this motherboard so I can
> achieve a 256MB RAM upgrade?
>
> Many thanks.
MS wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living
> room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very slow
> to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM, but virtual
> memory is using about 200MB, plainly I need a RAM upgrade.
>
> The motherboard is an Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity of
> 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>
> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory, so
> it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM. The
> Asus website had no info. available and the motherboard manual is long
> gone. I need advise on what RAM to buy, because there are so many types of
> SIMM RAM and I have only some idea what kind of potential problems might
> arise; wrong voltage, too fast, etc.
>
> Does anyone know what kind of RAM I must buy for this motherboard so I can
> achieve a 256MB RAM upgrade?
>
> Many thanks.
If it's an old TX board with cache memory on the board, then there is
an issue that it will only cache 64MB, the rest will be un-cached.
MS wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living
> room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very slow
> to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM, but virtual
> memory is using about 200MB, plainly I need a RAM upgrade.
>
> The motherboard is an Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity of
> 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>
> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory, so
> it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM.
What usally happens is the motherboard will read the dimms and ignore
the simms. So Yeah, it's a bad idea.
MS wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living
> room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very slow
> to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM, but virtual
> memory is using about 200MB, plainly I need a RAM upgrade.
>
> The motherboard is an Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity of
> 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>
> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory, so
> it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM. The
> Asus website had no info. available and the motherboard manual is long
> gone. I need advise on what RAM to buy, because there are so many types of
> SIMM RAM and I have only some idea what kind of potential problems might
> arise; wrong voltage, too fast, etc.
>
> Does anyone know what kind of RAM I must buy for this motherboard so I can
> achieve a 256MB RAM upgrade?
>
> Many thanks.
"The Intel 430HX PCIset can cache up to 512 MB, while the Intel 430TX PCIset
can cache 64 MB of memory. Each of these chipsets can handle a system with
as much memory as the chipset's maximum memory size, but they will perform
optimally when all of the memory is cached. For this reason performance may
slow slightly when a system operates with more memory than its chipset can
cache."
MS wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living
> room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very slow
> to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM,
> Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity of 256MB
> using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
Get a new motherboard since that one can cache only 64M of memory, so
expanding to 256M will hardly improve the speed. I'm not a computer
faddist who believes in upgrading at every whim, but a 430TX system is
just not good enough for Windows 2000. A contemporary motherboard and
AMD Athlon64 or Sempron64 are often available for under $100, but
you'll need new memory and a new power supply.
> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory, so
> it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM.
Unless you already have those SIMMs, it would probably be cheaper and
better to get a 256M DIMM compatible with PC66 or PC100. Some 256M
PC133 modules meet that standard, those with 16Mx8 chips. That usually
means 16 chips, but you cannot use a 16-chip module containing 32Mx4
chips. The TXP4's Intel 430TX chip set does support 256M DIMMs.
The reason SIMMs and DIMMs shouldn't be mixed is because in almost
every motherboard they share the same memory bus, but the SIMMs use 5V
signals while the DIMMs use 3.3V signals, and the higher voltage of the
SIMM signals will gradually destroy the DIMM chips. Some DIMM chips
can tolerate the 5V signals, and some motherboard chip sets, probably
made by SiS, keep the SIMMs and DIMMs on separate buses.
>> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and
>> (living room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is
>> very slow to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM,
>> Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity
>> of 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
> Get a new motherboard since that one can cache only 64M of
> memory, so expanding to 256M will hardly improve the speed.
That's overstating it. Even uncached system ram will be a
hell of a lot faster than the virtual memory on the hard drive.
> I'm not a computer faddist who believes in upgrading at every whim,
> but a 430TX system is just not good enough for Windows 2000.
Bullshit.
> A contemporary motherboard and AMD Athlon64 or
> Sempron64 are often available for under $100, but
> you'll need new memory and a new power supply.
>> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory, so
>> it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM.
> Unless you already have those SIMMs, it would probably be cheaper
> and better to get a 256M DIMM compatible with PC66 or PC100.
Plenty of those old socket 7 systems dont like some dimms
and work much better with simms, much more likely to work.
> Some 256M PC133 modules meet that standard, those with
> 16Mx8 chips. That usually means 16 chips, but you cannot use
> a 16-chip module containing 32Mx4 chips. The TXP4's Intel
> 430TX chip set does support 256M DIMMs.
> The reason SIMMs and DIMMs shouldn't be mixed is because in almost
> every motherboard they share the same memory bus, but the SIMMs
> use 5V signals while the DIMMs use 3.3V signals, and the higher voltage
> of the SIMM signals will gradually destroy the DIMM chips. Some DIMM
> chips can tolerate the 5V signals, and some motherboard chip sets,
> probably made by SiS, keep the SIMMs and DIMMs on separate buses.
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:52:51 -0700, paulmd@efn.org thoughtfully wrote:
> MS wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living
>> room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very
>> slow to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM, but
>> virtual memory is using about 200MB, plainly I need a RAM upgrade.
>>
>> The motherboard is an Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity
>> of 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>>
>> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory,
>> so it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM.
>
> What usally happens is the motherboard will read the dimms and ignore the
> simms. So Yeah, it's a bad idea.
>
> http://www.crucial.com/store/listpar...TXP4&submit=Go
>
> It looks like a pair of 128MB PC66 would work better. Pull you current
> simms.
>
> SDRAM, PC66 · CL=2 · Unbuffered · Non-parity · 66MHz · 3.3V · 16Meg
> x 64
>
> No, you don't have to buy from crucial. You can get them cheaper.
>
> The thing with the 64MB simms, is they're gonna cost more. And may not be
> compatible.
>
> The PC-66 is also gonna be faster. Where you can put pc-66, you can
> usually also put pc100 or 133, which is more common.
I'd go with the Crucial suggested upgrade of 2 128mg PC66 and nothing
more. Less chance of failure and headaches if you're going to spend the
money. Newer chips might not be the right memory module density
acceptable to your m/b. If you have to RMA the memory postage adds up
to a new system.
W2k should work better with 256mg ram IIRC W2k spec'd for 128mg ram.
> Hi,
>
> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living
> room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very slow
> to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM, but virtual
> memory is using about 200MB, plainly I need a RAM upgrade.
>
> The motherboard is an Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity of
> 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>
> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory, so
> it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM. The
> Asus website had no info. available and the motherboard manual is long
> gone. I need advise on what RAM to buy, because there are so many types of
> SIMM RAM and I have only some idea what kind of potential problems might
> arise; wrong voltage, too fast, etc.
>
> Does anyone know what kind of RAM I must buy for this motherboard so I can
> achieve a 256MB RAM upgrade?
>
> Many thanks.
If you cant replace the machine with something quicker, cross-grading
to win98 would help a lot. That runs ok on 64, and 256 is its
sweetspot. Then you can strip the various unnecesary junk from 98 to
make it sleeker, reorganise the start menu for quick easy use, add
firewall, av, a decent replacements for text editor, word processing,
sound player, and so on, put crashdoctor on to make it all more stable,
and use winsolo for single heavyweight app use, add wintop, coral task
manager, taskill, star office, etc. The downsides of 98 are less
stability and security, the upsides are it runs a lot better on
machines of SIMM socket age, as its lighter and has better user
navigation.
DIMMs would probably be cheaper than SIMMs for you. 128 DIMMs are
available from junked machines, but it sounds like the junkers would be
better than what youve got. So I'm wondering why not replace the whole
machine. What are the specs of this dino?
> Hi,
>
> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living
> room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very slow
> to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM, but virtual
> memory is using about 200MB, plainly I need a RAM upgrade.
>
> The motherboard is an Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity of
> 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>
> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory, so
> it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM. The
> Asus website had no info. available and the motherboard manual is long
> gone. I need advise on what RAM to buy, because there are so many types of
> SIMM RAM and I have only some idea what kind of potential problems might
> arise; wrong voltage, too fast, etc.
>
> Does anyone know what kind of RAM I must buy for this motherboard so I can
> achieve a 256MB RAM upgrade?
>
> Many thanks.
If you cant replace the machine with something quicker, cross-grading
to win98 would help a lot. That runs ok on 64, and 256 is its
sweetspot. Then you can strip the various unnecesary junk from 98 to
make it sleeker, reorganise the start menu for quick easy use, add
firewall, av, a decent replacements for text editor, word processing,
sound player, and so on, put crashdoctor on to make it all more stable,
and use winsolo for single heavyweight app use, add wintop, coral task
manager, taskill, star office, etc. The downsides of 98 are less
stability and security, the upsides are it runs a lot better on
machines of SIMM socket age, as its lighter and has better user
navigation.
DIMMs would probably be cheaper than SIMMs for you. 128 DIMMs are
available from junked machines, but it sounds like the junkers would be
better than what youve got. So I'm wondering why not replace the whole
machine. What are the specs of this dino?
Chris Whelan emailed this:
> MS wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living
>> room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very slow
>> to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM, but virtual
>> memory is using about 200MB, plainly I need a RAM upgrade.
>>
>> The motherboard is an Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity of
>> 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>>
>> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory, so
>> it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM. The
>> Asus website had no info. available and the motherboard manual is long
>> gone. I need advise on what RAM to buy, because there are so many types of
>> SIMM RAM and I have only some idea what kind of potential problems might
>> arise; wrong voltage, too fast, etc.
>>
>> Does anyone know what kind of RAM I must buy for this motherboard so I can
>> achieve a 256MB RAM upgrade?
>>
>> Many thanks.
>
> Any help?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mt462
meow2222@care2.com emailed this:
> MS wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living
>> room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very slow
>> to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM, but virtual
>> memory is using about 200MB, plainly I need a RAM upgrade.
>>
>> The motherboard is an Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity of
>> 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>>
>> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory, so
>> it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM. The
>> Asus website had no info. available and the motherboard manual is long
>> gone. I need advise on what RAM to buy, because there are so many types of
>> SIMM RAM and I have only some idea what kind of potential problems might
>> arise; wrong voltage, too fast, etc.
>>
>> Does anyone know what kind of RAM I must buy for this motherboard so I can
>> achieve a 256MB RAM upgrade?
>>
>> Many thanks.
>
> If you cant replace the machine with something quicker, cross-grading
> to win98 would help a lot. That runs ok on 64, and 256 is its
> sweetspot. Then you can strip the various unnecesary junk from 98 to
> make it sleeker, reorganise the start menu for quick easy use, add
> firewall, av, a decent replacements for text editor, word processing,
> sound player, and so on, put crashdoctor on to make it all more stable,
> and use winsolo for single heavyweight app use, add wintop, coral task
> manager, taskill, star office, etc. The downsides of 98 are less
> stability and security, the upsides are it runs a lot better on
> machines of SIMM socket age, as its lighter and has better user
> navigation.
>
> DIMMs would probably be cheaper than SIMMs for you. 128 DIMMs are
> available from junked machines, but it sounds like the junkers would be
> better than what youve got. So I'm wondering why not replace the whole
> machine. What are the specs of this dino?
Rod Speed emailed this:
> do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote
>> MS wrote
>
>>> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and
>>> (living room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is
>>> very slow to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM,
>
>>> Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity
>>> of 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>
>> Get a new motherboard since that one can cache only 64M of
>> memory, so expanding to 256M will hardly improve the speed.
>
> That's overstating it. Even uncached system ram will be a
> hell of a lot faster than the virtual memory on the hard drive.
Ok, so I understand the issue with the lack of caching. But don't want to
go to the added expense of a new motherboard, the PC is after all just a
glorified jukebox.
...but 2 x 128MB will cost £50 (~US$100) and I can't find it anywhere else
except on EBay where I can only get 1 x 128MB module instead of the 2 as I
originally planned.
My questions is that given the lack of cache beyond 64MB, would I be as
well off with 128MB as I would with 256MB?
Also another poster wrote that pc100 or 133 might work. This is much
cheaper than the pc66, what are the chances of it running on my motherboard?
jaster emailed this:
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:52:51 -0700, paulmd@efn.org thoughtfully wrote:
>
>> MS wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living
>>> room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very
>>> slow to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM, but
>>> virtual memory is using about 200MB, plainly I need a RAM upgrade.
>>>
>>> The motherboard is an Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity
>>> of 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>>>
>>> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory,
>>> so it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM.
>> What usally happens is the motherboard will read the dimms and ignore the
>> simms. So Yeah, it's a bad idea.
>>
>> http://www.crucial.com/store/listpar...TXP4&submit=Go
>>
>> It looks like a pair of 128MB PC66 would work better. Pull you current
>> simms.
>>
>> SDRAM, PC66 · CL=2 · Unbuffered · Non-parity · 66MHz · 3.3V · 16Meg
>> x 64
>>
>> No, you don't have to buy from crucial. You can get them cheaper.
>>
>> The thing with the 64MB simms, is they're gonna cost more. And may not be
>> compatible.
>>
>> The PC-66 is also gonna be faster. Where you can put pc-66, you can
>> usually also put pc100 or 133, which is more common.
>
> I'd go with the Crucial suggested upgrade of 2 128mg PC66 and nothing
> more. Less chance of failure and headaches if you're going to spend the
> money. Newer chips might not be the right memory module density
> acceptable to your m/b. If you have to RMA the memory postage adds up
> to a new system.
>
> W2k should work better with 256mg ram IIRC W2k spec'd for 128mg ram.
Ironically the pc100 or 133 are much cheaper than the pc66, less than half
the price. What are the chances of it working on the ASUS TXP4? AFAICT the
manual (URL below) doesn't even mention the speed (PC66) required, but the
Crucial website points firmly to the pc66 and does not list pc100/133.
> Also another poster wrote that pc100 or 133 might work. This is much
> cheaper than the pc66, what are the chances of it running on my motherboard?
PC100 will definitely work. PC133 will work if it's also
PC100-compatible, that is, each of its chips is 16M x 8, not 32M x 4 or
a larger size. Most PC133 currently available is not PC100 compatible.
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com emailed this:
> meow2222@care2.com wrote:
>
>> If you cant replace the machine with something quicker, cross-grading
>> to win98 would help a lot. That runs ok on 64, and 256 is its
>> sweetspot.
>
> With over 64M on an Intel 438TX motherboard, Windows 98 and 98SE have a
> loader problem that could prevent them from operating.
Thanks. I just realized that the Wireless card in it is 2000/XP/Linux only.
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com emailed this:
> MS wrote:
>
>> Also another poster wrote that pc100 or 133 might work. This is much
>> cheaper than the pc66, what are the chances of it running on my motherboard?
>
> PC100 will definitely work. PC133 will work if it's also
> PC100-compatible, that is, each of its chips is 16M x 8, not 32M x 4 or
> a larger size. Most PC133 currently available is not PC100 compatible.
Many thanks. May I ask how you know for sure? It would be a real pain to
buy it just to send it back.
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:05:56 GMT, MS
<No.Way.Jose@No.Spam.Thank.You.com> wrote:
>do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com emailed this:
>> meow2222@care2.com wrote:
>>
>>> If you cant replace the machine with something quicker, cross-grading
>>> to win98 would help a lot. That runs ok on 64, and 256 is its
>>> sweetspot.
>>
>> With over 64M on an Intel 438TX motherboard, Windows 98 and 98SE have a
>> loader problem that could prevent them from operating.
>
>Thanks. I just realized that the Wireless card in it is 2000/XP/Linux only.
>
>Cheers.
Given careful pruning of the services, and apps running in
the background, Win2k can still do acceptibly on 128MB for
very basic uses. More advanced uses, there's a narrow
opportity to free up another 30MB or so of memory by using
Win98, but already having Win2k on it, I'd leave it on
there.
Due to the costs of memory back in the PC66 era, 128MB DIMMs
were less common- certainly not unheard of but at the time
the average system sold had maybe 32-64MB in it.
You might call some local computer shops, they may be
throwing away memory like this or selling it cheap (maybe
$10 per module or less), and hopefully with at least a
guarantee that it works on your system.
[...]
> Also another poster wrote that pc100 or 133 might work. This is much
> cheaper than the pc66, what are the chances of it running on my
> motherboard?
>
There's loads of PC100 128MB sticks on eBay for around 6UKP inc postage. Why
not get a couple and try them? If you can't afford to loose 12 quid, flog
them back on eBay!
MS wrote:
>
> Ironically the pc100 or 133 are much cheaper than the pc66, less than
> half the price. What are the chances of it working on the ASUS TXP4?
> AFAICT the manual (URL below) doesn't even mention the speed (PC66)
> required, but the Crucial website points firmly to the pc66 and does not
> list pc100/133.
Older SDRAM sticks didn't have SPD support, or at least motherboards
didn't use it. This makes compatibility straightforward, as the chips
are all easily fast enough for CL2 @ PC66. I've never had a problem
using PC100 or PC133 sticks in old boards.
The main problem is that the 430TX may not have 128mbit support (Intel
site just says "64mbit support: Yes"), so you'd need to use 16-chip
128MB sticks. Crucial's cheaper sticks are probably 8-chip, although you
can find a lot of 16-chip 128MB sticks for next to nothing on eBay.
MS <No.Way.Jose@No.Spam.Thank.You.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote
>>> MS wrote
>>>> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living room) web access. It
>>>> runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but
>>>> everything is very slow to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM,
>>>> Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity
>>>> of 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>>> Get a new motherboard since that one can cache only 64M of
>>> memory, so expanding to 256M will hardly improve the speed.
>> That's overstating it. Even uncached system ram will be a
>> hell of a lot faster than the virtual memory on the hard drive.
> Ok, so I understand the issue with the lack of caching. But don't want to go to the added expense
> of a new motherboard, the PC is after all just a glorified jukebox.
Yeah, a new motherboard makes no sense. The lack of full caching
shouldnt matter at all with a glorified jukebox, the speed is entirely
determined by the rate at which the music is played and even with
no caching at all, that should be perfectly adequate.
Yeah, doesnt make a lot of sense for an old dinosaur like that.
> and I can't find it anywhere else except on EBay where I can only get 1 x 128MB module instead of
> the 2 as I originally planned.
I'd personally put simms in that system not dimms. simms are
a lot more bulletproof in those old socket 7 systems which dont
bother to read the spd on the dimms and attempt to guess the
specs of the ram instead of getting those from the spds. Its a lot
easier to guess the specs of the simms, they vary a lot less.
And they are plentiful and cheap on ebay too.
> My questions is that given the lack of cache beyond 64MB, would I be as well off with 128MB as I
> would with 256MB?
No, the more ram the better even without cache beyond 64MB.
> Also another poster wrote that pc100 or 133 might work. This is much cheaper than the pc66, what
> are the chances of it running on my motherboard?
The problem with those old socket 7 systems is that they generally
cant handle the higher density dimms. Thats a separate issue to the
speed, the PC100/133, except that you normally see the higher
densitys with the better speeds.
Like I said, I'd personally use simms instead, just because they
are much more likely to just work fine and they are cheaper again.
>
> Ironically the pc100 or 133 are much cheaper than the pc66, less than half
> the price. What are the chances of it working on the ASUS TXP4?
Good odds. I cannot guarentee, though. It's RARELY been an issue. Just
make sure that the company will let you return them if they're
incompatable before you buy.
AFAICT the
> manual (URL below) doesn't even mention the speed (PC66) required, but the
> Crucial website points firmly to the pc66 and does not list pc100/133.
>
> Also another poster wrote that pc100 or 133 might work. This is much
> cheaper than the pc66, what are the chances of it running on my motherboard?
> >
> > PC100 will definitely work. PC133 will work if it's also
> > PC100-compatible, that is, each of its chips is 16M x 8, not 32M x 4 or
> > a larger size. Most PC133 currently available is not PC100 compatible.
>
> Many thanks. May I ask how you know for sure?
I tested 64M - 256M DIMMs in 2 different 430TX motherboards, one by
ECS, another by a company that no longer exists. I found they accepted
DIMMs that did not work with motherboards based on VIA brand VP2 or MVP
chip sets.
MS wrote:
> jaster emailed this:
> > On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:52:51 -0700, paulmd@efn.org thoughtfully wrote:
> >
> >> MS wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living
> >>> room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very
> >>> slow to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM, but
> >>> virtual memory is using about 200MB, plainly I need a RAM upgrade.
> >>>
> >>> The motherboard is an Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity
> >>> of 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
> >>>
> >>> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory,
> >>> so it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM RAM.
> >> What usally happens is the motherboard will read the dimms and ignore the
> >> simms. So Yeah, it's a bad idea.
> >>
> >> http://www.crucial.com/store/listpar...TXP4&submit=Go
> >>
> >> It looks like a pair of 128MB PC66 would work better. Pull you current
> >> simms.
> >>
> >> SDRAM, PC66 · CL=2 · Unbuffered · Non-parity · 66MHz · 3.3V · 16Meg
> >> x 64
> >>
> >> No, you don't have to buy from crucial. You can get them cheaper.
> >>
> >> The thing with the 64MB simms, is they're gonna cost more. And may notbe
> >> compatible.
> >>
> >> The PC-66 is also gonna be faster. Where you can put pc-66, you can
> >> usually also put pc100 or 133, which is more common.
> >
> > I'd go with the Crucial suggested upgrade of 2 128mg PC66 and nothing
> > more. Less chance of failure and headaches if you're going to spend the
> > money. Newer chips might not be the right memory module density
> > acceptable to your m/b. If you have to RMA the memory postage adds up
> > to a new system.
> >
> > W2k should work better with 256mg ram IIRC W2k spec'd for 128mg ram.
>
> Ironically the pc100 or 133 are much cheaper than the pc66, less than half
> the price. What are the chances of it working on the ASUS TXP4? AFAICT the
> manual (URL below) doesn't even mention the speed (PC66) required, but the
> Crucial website points firmly to the pc66 and does not list pc100/133.
>
> ftp://dlsvr02.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/s...4/txp4-200.pdf
>
> Any advise would be welcome. Thanks.
They're not saying much, but there's a few important points from the
manual.
"WARNING! Do not install both SIMMs and DIMMs at the same time or else
you
will burn your memory. "
"Do not use memory modules with more than 18 chips per module. Modules
with more than 18 chips exceed the design specifications of the memory
subsystem and will be unstable."
You CAN use 64mb simms, non parity only.
You can use EDO Dimms. Or SDRAM (vauge, but pc somenting).
Indiviual dimms can be up to 256MB, but the max ram on the board will
still be 256MB.
Also, you might want to consider a BIOS upgrade before you get new RAM
for his thing, as it will improve your odds of it working right. You
may as well get the Beta bios (it's been in beta since 1999 :) )
Rod Speed emailed this:
> MS <No.Way.Jose@No.Spam.Thank.You.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote
>>>> MS wrote
>
>>>>> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living room) web access. It
>>>>> runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but
>>>>> everything is very slow to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB RAM,
>
>>>>> Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity
>>>>> of 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>
>>>> Get a new motherboard since that one can cache only 64M of
>>>> memory, so expanding to 256M will hardly improve the speed.
>
>>> That's overstating it. Even uncached system ram will be a
>>> hell of a lot faster than the virtual memory on the hard drive.
>
>> Ok, so I understand the issue with the lack of caching. But don't want to go to the added expense
>> of a new motherboard, the PC is after all just a glorified jukebox.
>
> Yeah, a new motherboard makes no sense. The lack of full caching
> shouldnt matter at all with a glorified jukebox, the speed is entirely
> determined by the rate at which the music is played and even with
> no caching at all, that should be perfectly adequate.
>
>> I can get the memory from Crucial...
>
>> "168-pin DIMM 128MB SDRAM, PC66 • CL=2 • Unbuffered • Non-parity • 66MHz • 3.3V • 16Meg x 64"
>
>> ..but 2 x 128MB will cost £50 (~US$100)
>
> Yeah, doesnt make a lot of sense for an old dinosaur like that.
>
>> and I can't find it anywhere else except on EBay where I can only get 1 x 128MB module instead of
>> the 2 as I originally planned.
>
> I'd personally put simms in that system not dimms. simms are
> a lot more bulletproof in those old socket 7 systems which dont
> bother to read the spd on the dimms and attempt to guess the
> specs of the ram instead of getting those from the spds. Its a lot
> easier to guess the specs of the simms, they vary a lot less.
>
> And they are plentiful and cheap on ebay too.
>
>> My questions is that given the lack of cache beyond 64MB, would I be as well off with 128MB as I
>> would with 256MB?
>
> No, the more ram the better even without cache beyond 64MB.
>
>> Also another poster wrote that pc100 or 133 might work. This is much cheaper than the pc66, what
>> are the chances of it running on my motherboard?
>
> The problem with those old socket 7 systems is that they generally
> cant handle the higher density dimms. Thats a separate issue to the
> speed, the PC100/133, except that you normally see the higher
> densitys with the better speeds.
>
> Like I said, I'd personally use simms instead, just because they
> are much more likely to just work fine and they are cheaper again.
Many thanks Rod.
Sorry to be cheeky but can you have a look at this ebay page, I think this
is the right memory but I'm not sure and would like to have an expert
confirm it for me. Many thanks and regards.
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:12:05 GMT, MS
<No.Way.Jose@No.Spam.Thank.You.com> wrote:
>Ironically the pc100 or 133 are much cheaper than the pc66, less than half
>the price. What are the chances of it working on the ASUS TXP4? AFAICT the
>manual (URL below) doesn't even mention the speed (PC66) required, but the
>Crucial website points firmly to the pc66 and does not list pc100/133.
>
>ftp://dlsvr02.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/s...4/txp4-200.pdf
>
>Any advise would be welcome. Thanks.
Considering the cachable memory limit you might also seek 2
or 4 pieces of EDO 32MB SIMMs on ebay for 2 x 32 = 64MB or 4
x 32 = 128MB total memory. With those you are probably less
dependant on the seller knowing what it is.
PC133 is not likely to work, practically all is too high a
density and at best your board would see half of the
installed capacity. Rarely even PC100 is high density but
the odds of high density PC100 are low unless you buy from
one of the bottom feeders on Pricewatch (or on ebay, the
risk is highly variable based on the seller).
PC66 memory is often not termed as "PC(nn)" at all, might be
called 10ns or just 66MHz.
MS <No.Way.Jose@No.Spam.Thank.You.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> MS <No.Way.Jose@No.Spam.Thank.You.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote
>>>>> MS wrote
>>>>>> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and (living room) web access. It
>>>>>> runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything is very slow to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is
>>>>>> it has just 64MB RAM,
>>>>>> Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM capacity
>>>>>> of 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>>>>> Get a new motherboard since that one can cache only 64M of
>>>>> memory, so expanding to 256M will hardly improve the speed.
>>>> That's overstating it. Even uncached system ram will be a
>>>> hell of a lot faster than the virtual memory on the hard drive.
>>> Ok, so I understand the issue with the lack of caching. But don't want to go to the added
>>> expense of a new motherboard, the PC is after all just a glorified jukebox.
>> Yeah, a new motherboard makes no sense. The lack of full caching shouldnt matter at all with a
>> glorified jukebox, the speed is entirely determined by the rate at which the music is played and
>> even with no caching at all, that should be perfectly adequate.
>> Yeah, doesnt make a lot of sense for an old dinosaur like that.
>>> and I can't find it anywhere else except on EBay where I can only
>>> get 1 x 128MB module instead of the 2 as I originally planned.
>> I'd personally put simms in that system not dimms. simms are
>> a lot more bulletproof in those old socket 7 systems which dont
>> bother to read the spd on the dimms and attempt to guess the
>> specs of the ram instead of getting those from the spds. Its a lot
>> easier to guess the specs of the simms, they vary a lot less.
>> And they are plentiful and cheap on ebay too.
>>> My questions is that given the lack of cache beyond 64MB, would I be as well off with 128MB as I
>>> would with 256MB?
>> No, the more ram the better even without cache beyond 64MB.
>>> Also another poster wrote that pc100 or 133 might work. This is much cheaper than the pc66, what
>>> are the chances of it running on my motherboard?
>> The problem with those old socket 7 systems is that they generally
>> cant handle the higher density dimms. Thats a separate issue to the
>> speed, the PC100/133, except that you normally see the higher
>> densitys with the better speeds.
>> Like I said, I'd personally use simms instead, just because they
>> are much more likely to just work fine and they are cheaper again.
> Many thanks Rod.
> Sorry to be cheeky
Dont worry about that, that's what these technical newsgroups are for.
> but can you have a look at this ebay page, I think this is the right memory but I'm not sure and
> would like to have an expert confirm it for me.
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:12:05 +0000, MS thoughtfully wrote:
>
>
> jaster emailed this:
>> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:52:51 -0700, paulmd@efn.org thoughtfully wrote:
>>
>>> MS wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and
>>>> (living room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything
>>>> is very slow to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB
>>>> RAM, but virtual memory is using about 200MB, plainly I need a RAM
>>>> upgrade.
>>>>
>>>> The motherboard is an Asus TXP4 which apparently has a max RAM
>>>> capacity of 256MB using 4 (2 banks of 2) x SIMM and 2 x DIMM.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that it's usually a bad idea to mix SIMM and DIMM memory,
>>>> so it seems my best bet is to get 256MB RAM by using 4 x 64MB SIMM
>>>> RAM.
>>> What usally happens is the motherboard will read the dimms and ignore
>>> the simms. So Yeah, it's a bad idea.
>>>
>>> http://www.crucial.com/store/listpar...TXP4&submit=Go
>>>
>>> It looks like a pair of 128MB PC66 would work better. Pull you current
>>> simms.
>>>
>>> SDRAM, PC66 · CL=2 · Unbuffered · Non-parity · 66MHz · 3.3V ·
>>> 16Meg x 64
>>>
>>> No, you don't have to buy from crucial. You can get them cheaper.
>>>
>>> The thing with the 64MB simms, is they're gonna cost more. And may not
>>> be compatible.
>>>
>>> The PC-66 is also gonna be faster. Where you can put pc-66, you can
>>> usually also put pc100 or 133, which is more common.
>>
>> I'd go with the Crucial suggested upgrade of 2 128mg PC66 and nothing
>> more. Less chance of failure and headaches if you're going to spend the
>> money. Newer chips might not be the right memory module density
>> acceptable to your m/b. If you have to RMA the memory postage adds up to
>> a new system.
>>
>> W2k should work better with 256mg ram IIRC W2k spec'd for 128mg ram.
>
> Ironically the pc100 or 133 are much cheaper than the pc66, less than half
> the price. What are the chances of it working on the ASUS TXP4? AFAICT the
> manual (URL below) doesn't even mention the speed (PC66) required, but the
> Crucial website points firmly to the pc66 and does not list pc100/133.
>
> ftp://dlsvr02.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/s...4/txp4-200.pdf
>
> Any advise would be welcome. Thanks.
Honestly, I would go with PC100 over PC133 but in your case you
have to make sure the memory is using less than 18 chips per module. I
think that means your memory should have 8 chips on it (16M x 8)?
If you buy memory from a vendor who will exchange or refund without hassle
or postage try it.
jaster wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:12:05 +0000, MS thoughtfully wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > jaster emailed this:
> >> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:52:51 -0700, paulmd@efn.org thoughtfully wrote:
> >>
> >>> MS wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have an old PC which I've just turned into a music machine and
> >>>> (living room) web access. It runs Win 2000 Pro (just) but everything
> >>>> is very slow to load and I mean SLOW. The reason is it has just 64MB
> &g
Old moherboard RAM upgrade. 