re: Question about 'Dealing with Bad Memory (RAM)'
Tuesday, September 18, 2001 at 4:47 pm
Windows Me Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Radalfo Daniels
(2 messages posted)
Those suggestions are all good, but there is one fundamental problem. All Windows
OSs based on the Windows 9x kernel (Windows 95, 95a, 95 OSR2 - 2.5 (B and C), 98,
98SE, ME) have a problem with more than 512MB of memory loaded on a system. Fortunately,
Windows NT, 2000, XP do not have such a problem because they are based on, in my
opinion, the better NT kernel. Try taking out one or more of your DIMMs until you
have less than 512MB in the system and try some of the same tasks
--Just a suggestion
-=Radalfo=-
On Sunday, August 19, 2001 at 2:05 pm, Charles wrote:
>Tamas,
>
>Your problem is two fold. The first is to tell Windows not to use so much memory
>for it's cache. You can do this by going to Start then Run and typing in MSCONFIG.
>After clicking OK, click on the Advanced button. Go to and check Limit Memory to
>and enter 512. (this will render the 256meg over 512 not used).
>
>It sucks but this is a known issue with Windows. It simply was never developed to
>handle this much memory because none of us could afford it or our motherboards were
>not able to have as much. Now that prices have dropped, we are all going out to
buy
>more memory only to find out that our operating system can't handle it!
>
>Symantec is finally admitting that their utilities program can't handle more than
>256meg! They offer a 'workaround' but it still does not work on systems with more
>that 256meg.
>
>They (Symantec) have not announced a fix. Nor do they seem concerned at all that
>their product is flawed. I suppose they, like Microsoft, never anticipated RAM prices
>dropping to the point where all of us 'common folk' would have this much memory
in
>our computers.
>
>What is really wrong about this and ticks me off the most is that both Microsoft
>and Symantec have known about this limitation for months, perhaps years! It obviously
>was never a 'high priority' concern to them because the majority of their customer
>base didn't have this much RAM installed. So nobody complained about it.
>
>We should all write to them now to let them know how displeased we are about this.
>
>One final but drastic thing you could try is to pull a stick of memory out of your
>computer and actually run with less.(Maybe get your money back?).
>
>Again, this sucks, but I don't see either company addressing this as an 'issue'.
>I wouldn't look for a software fix for quite some time (if at all!).
>
>I hope this helps.
>I suggest you try Microsoft and Symantec web sites to get further information.
>
>Good luck,
>Chaz
>
>
>
>On Friday, August 17, 2001 at 5:41 pm, Tamas Frecska wrote:
>I have a question about Dealing
>with Bad Memory (RAM):
>Is the following a memory problem or not? I upgraded my computer (motherboard,CPU
>and Ram)to 768Mb Ram. Everything works fine but certain programs (always the same
>programs), give me a message "not enough memory to run this program." Some program
>disks, e.g. a Comcast upgrade, I can't even look at with Windows Explorer because
>of this message. Unrelated but, occasionally Norton 2001 chimes in with a message
>of "dangerously low memory." What gives? I'd appreciate any and all comments
>Tamas
>
>
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 | |  | re: Question about 'Dealing with Bad Memory (RAM)' (Radalfo Daniels: Tue, Sep 18, 2001, 4:47 pm) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows Me Discussion Forum
|
|
