• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Another seemingly noobie question.

K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:50:01 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
<not@this.address.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:32:21 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:54:50 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
> > <not@this.address.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:01:00 +0100, Gordon wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 25/07/2010 16:38, Stefan Patric wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Generally, the more RAM, the better. (I consider 4GB the absolute
> >> >> minimum for a useful Windows 7 system anyway.)
> >> >
> >> > Tosh. Mime performs perfectly well on only 2GB...
> >>
> >> The rule of thumb (for general use) I've used for years with Windows,
> >> and it has served me pretty well, is to take the RAM minimum
> >> recommended by Microsoft and double it.
> >
> >
> >
> > To take a single example, Microsoft's minimum for Windows XP was 64MB.
> > Have you ever tried running it with 128MB? Unless you do little more
> > than play solitaire, 128MB isn't enough for anyone. Almost everyone
> > needs at least 256MB, and depending on what apps they run, many people
> > need more.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> MS "recommends" 128MB for XP Home even though they say "at least" 64MB.


I can't find the web pages now, but I've seen both those numbers
*recommended*. They weren't always consistent.


> I would double the 128, since they recommend that amount over 64.


Yes, I agree. 256MB is about the minimum almost anyone should have.



> Yes, I have installed and run XP Home on a 128MB system, but to get
> decent performance, I had to "turn off" a lot of nonessential features
> and background processes. Also, made sure that no apps were "preloaded"
> on boot up. For e-mail, web, word processing, printing, etc. it worked
> fine, which was all it was going to be used for. Although, as you said,
> 256MB of RAM would have been better.
>
>
> Stef
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:12:46 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
<not@this.address.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:08:21 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:38:26 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
> > <not@this.address.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Generally, the more RAM, the better.
> >
> >
> > Not correct. If your apps don't need much RAM, more won't help you at
> > all. To take an extreme example, if all you do is play solitaire, you
> > wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 1GB and 16GB.
>
> I stand by my very generalized statement. However, as with all
> generalizations, specifically you can always find situations where they
> don't apply.



Yes, all generalizations are false, including this one (a famous
quotation, but I forgot who first said it).

But I don't agree with your generalization at all. There's my extreme
example above and at the other end of the scale, here's another: if
you are a typical user doing e-mail, web browsing and a little word
processing (my wife, for example), you wouldn't be able to tell the
difference between 2GB and 16GB.
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:30:22 -0700, Ken Blake
<kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:10:34 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>
>> >2. It's unfortunately highly unlikely that you can add the 4GB she
>> >found unless it matches the RAM you already have in all respects
>> >(brand, speed, etc.).
>>
>> Technically, it only needs to be the same type (correct number of
>> pins, primarily). Brand, speed, and module size are not important.
>> Having said, I normally recommend installing memory in pairs for
>> optimum performance, but even that isn't important.
>>
>> I've never run into a motherboard that has a problem with mixed
>> brands, speeds, or module sizes.
>
>
>OK--you haven't, but many other people have.

Highly doubtful, Ken. In fact, it's simply untrue.
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:32:46 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:30:22 -0700, Ken Blake
> <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:10:34 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >2. It's unfortunately highly unlikely that you can add the 4GB she
> >> >found unless it matches the RAM you already have in all respects
> >> >(brand, speed, etc.).
> >>
> >> Technically, it only needs to be the same type (correct number of
> >> pins, primarily). Brand, speed, and module size are not important.
> >> Having said, I normally recommend installing memory in pairs for
> >> optimum performance, but even that isn't important.
> >>
> >> I've never run into a motherboard that has a problem with mixed
> >> brands, speeds, or module sizes.
> >
> >
> >OK--you haven't, but many other people have.
>
> Highly doubtful, Ken. In fact, it's simply untrue.


Suffice it to say that I completely disagree with you. But I won't
argue--end of thread for me.
 
R

R. C. White

Flightless Bird
Hi, Char.

When I built my current rig in 2006, to run Vista RTM, I ordered the
components from NewEgg: EPoX MF570sli mobo/AMD Athlon 64 X2 CPU/2 GB OCZ
PC-6400 SDRAM. EPoX has gone out of business, but this mobo is still
running strong. (Graphics pulls my WEI down to 4.6, but CPU gets 5.7 and
RAM 7.1.)

That 2 GB original RAM ran fine but I wanted more, so I ordered an
additional 2 GB from NewEgg a year later. Identical to the original pair of
DIMMs. Ran fine with 4 GB for about 6 months. Then I started to get BSODs.
After a LOT of testing, my local repair tech and I identified one of the new
pair as questionable. I contacted OCZ. They gave me an RMA for BOTH of the
new sticks. The OCZ tech said they want to replace them in pairs, to be
SURE they match. The new pair they sent have been perfect for over a year
now.

So, even a matched pair from the same maker, same model and everything, CAN
fail to work together properly. I'm not techie, so I can't begin to explain
it. All I know is what I experienced. YMMV.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
Windows Live Mail 2010 (15.3.2804.0607) in Win7 Ultimate x64)

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
news:mjor46prkuaplgho1gqqia0ap9s5clevs4@4ax.com...

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:30:22 -0700, Ken Blake
<kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:10:34 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>
>> >2. It's unfortunately highly unlikely that you can add the 4GB she
>> >found unless it matches the RAM you already have in all respects
>> >(brand, speed, etc.).
>>
>> Technically, it only needs to be the same type (correct number of
>> pins, primarily). Brand, speed, and module size are not important.
>> Having said, I normally recommend installing memory in pairs for
>> optimum performance, but even that isn't important.
>>
>> I've never run into a motherboard that has a problem with mixed
>> brands, speeds, or module sizes.
>
>
>OK--you haven't, but many other people have.

Highly doubtful, Ken. In fact, it's simply untrue.
 
S

Stefan Patric

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:01:58 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:50:01 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
> <not@this.address.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:32:21 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:54:50 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
>> > <not@this.address.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:01:00 +0100, Gordon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 25/07/2010 16:38, Stefan Patric wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Generally, the more RAM, the better. (I consider 4GB the
>> >> >> absolute minimum for a useful Windows 7 system anyway.)
>> >> >
>> >> > Tosh. Mime performs perfectly well on only 2GB...
>> >>
>> >> The rule of thumb (for general use) I've used for years with
>> >> Windows, and it has served me pretty well, is to take the RAM
>> >> minimum recommended by Microsoft and double it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > To take a single example, Microsoft's minimum for Windows XP was
>> > 64MB. Have you ever tried running it with 128MB? Unless you do little
>> > more than play solitaire, 128MB isn't enough for anyone. Almost
>> > everyone needs at least 256MB, and depending on what apps they run,
>> > many people need more.
>> >
>> > [snip]
>>
>> MS "recommends" 128MB for XP Home even though they say "at least" 64MB.
>
>
> I can't find the web pages now, but I've seen both those numbers
> *recommended*. They weren't always consistent.
>
> [snip]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865

Did a Yahoo search "windows xp hardware requirements". The above link
was first on the list.

Stef
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:26:37 -0500, "R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net>
wrote:

>Hi, Char.
>
>When I built my current rig in 2006, to run Vista RTM, I ordered the
>components from NewEgg: EPoX MF570sli mobo/AMD Athlon 64 X2 CPU/2 GB OCZ
>PC-6400 SDRAM. EPoX has gone out of business, but this mobo is still
>running strong. (Graphics pulls my WEI down to 4.6, but CPU gets 5.7 and
>RAM 7.1.)
>
>That 2 GB original RAM ran fine but I wanted more, so I ordered an
>additional 2 GB from NewEgg a year later. Identical to the original pair of
>DIMMs. Ran fine with 4 GB for about 6 months. Then I started to get BSODs.
>After a LOT of testing, my local repair tech and I identified one of the new
>pair as questionable.

Tip: always suspect bad RAM when encountering random BSOD's. Run
Memtest86+ through at least one complete cycle.

>I contacted OCZ. They gave me an RMA for BOTH of the
>new sticks. The OCZ tech said they want to replace them in pairs, to be
>SURE they match. The new pair they sent have been perfect for over a year
>now.

Yes, that's normal, and they do that to ensure best performance, not
because failing to do so will result in further instability. It's easy
to reach the wrong conclusion, but now you know. :)

>So, even a matched pair from the same maker, same model and everything, CAN
>fail to work together properly. I'm not techie, so I can't begin to explain
>it.

No need. I've been building, repairing, and upgrading PC's as a side
business since 1986, so I'm pretty familiar with the situation.

As long as you stay with the right type of memory, DIMM, DRAM, DDRx,
etc.), and the right number of pins to match your mobo RAM sockets,
you can mix and match memory modules from different manufacturers,
different densities, and different speeds. When using different
speeds, memory access drops down to the slowest supported speed,
naturally.

>All I know is what I experienced. YMMV.

That's ok, sharing experiences is what it's all about.

I don't know where the myth of not being able to mix different memory
modules came from, but I've been hearing it on and off for as long as
I can remember. I just figured I'd do my part to help put it to rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top