I have a Dell Dim 8100 with 256K of Rambus. I have read that since there are 4 mem slots, if I want to add another pair of memory, I can do so. I'm thinking of adding 2x256 (512). Can I add that to my existing 256 and if so, does it have to be the exact same type, i.e. PC600?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

When it comes to RAMBUS, yes you need to make sure it is compatible and the same 
sepcification.  Best to go to a memory like Crucial.com or Kinston.com and look up 
your system.  It will tell you what you need and what your machine can handle.  You 
need to check your documentation or ask Dell for sure.  RAMBUS memory has a habit 
of not being as compatible with different manufacturers and model numbers as common 
SDRAM due to speed and timing etc and why it wasn't on the market all that long (one 
of many reasons).

Crucial says your system takes PC800..  Hmmm

 http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=Dimension%208100%20Series

Kinston doesn't even list it anymore.  It will be expensive, even from a budget memory 
seller..  Good Luck!







On Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 4:00 pm, MikeB wrote:

>I have a Dell Dim 8100 with 256K of Rambus.  I have read that since there are 4 
mem 

>slots, if I want to add another pair of memory, I can do so.  I'm thinking of adding 

>2x256 (512).  Can I add that to my existing 256 and if so, does it have to be the 

>exact same type, i.e. PC600? 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Thanks CK. A couple of other considerations here: I have now read that ME will only recognize 512MB. If that is true it would appear that my best bet is to simply add another pair of 128s (256) and with the existing 256 that's already there, I get my max benefit of 512. I'm still very confused about mixing and matching PC600 with PC800 and ECC with non-ECC. Any guidance on those issues?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

ECC and non ECC will NOT mix.  ECC is used in servers and/or high end machines where 
data integraty is the utmost importance.  Yours has NON ECC memory if it has the 
factory spec modules.

RD RAM is very particular.  When it was relaesed, there were many issues due to it's 
design and speed.  I tried mixing speeds of memory but the machines would fail or 
throw data errors constantly.  Your luck may be better.  With typical SD RAM, adding 
a faster speed ram would simply slow down the faster modules to work with slower 
ones.  For RD RAM, make sure you buy compatible/recommended RAM or you may have problems 
and might be a waste of money if you can't return them.

Win 98/SE/ME has a design limit for the memory it can effectively use.  Adding more 
than 512 meg, won't see much difference if any difference, and you have to add some 
tweaks or you will have out of memory/low resource errors.  Best bet is to stay at 
512 meg of RAM.   







On Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 4:04 pm, MikeB wrote:

>Thanks CK.  A couple of other considerations here:  I have now read that ME will 

>only recognize 512MB.  If that is true it would appear that my best bet is to simply 

>add another pair of 128s (256) and with the existing 256 that's already there, I 

>get my max benefit of 512.  I'm still very confused about mixing and matching PC600 

>with PC800 and ECC with non-ECC.  Any guidance on those issues? 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I run WinME with 756mb. The only requirement I know of for this to work properly is described at http://users.adelphia.net/~jgulley/me/index.html where Gulley gives the system.ini change needed.


On Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 8:01 pm, C K wrote:
>ECC and non ECC will NOT mix. ECC is used in servers and/or high end machines where
>data integraty is the utmost importance. Yours has NON ECC memory if it has the
>factory spec modules.
>
>RD RAM is very particular. When it was relaesed, there were many issues due to it's
>design and speed. I tried mixing speeds of memory but the machines would fail or
>throw data errors constantly. Your luck may be better. With typical SD RAM, adding
>a faster speed ram would simply slow down the faster modules to work with slower
>ones. For RD RAM, make sure you buy compatible/recommended RAM or you may have problems
>and might be a waste of money if you can't return them.
>
>Win 98/SE/ME has a design limit for the memory it can effectively use. Adding more
>than 512 meg, won't see much difference if any difference, and you have to add some
>tweaks or you will have out of memory/low resource errors. Best bet is to stay at
>512 meg of RAM.
>
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Win 9x won't use over 512 meg even if you have more.  The INI and some other changes/tweaks 
limits the memory Win 9X can address.  Win 9X can't physically address/reference 
the physical memory to the virtual memory.  MS has KB articles on it.  It is a design 
limitation that they didn't plan on fixing as XP was on it's way and Win 9X is a 
hybrid system 16/32 bit system with built in limitations so they never planned to 
rewrite an old operating system.

Even with the tweaks, some systems will not boot.  I have two such motherboards (older 
Asus server class models)...







On Friday, December 21, 2007 at 9:19 am, sean97 wrote:

>I run WinME with 756mb.  The only requirement I know of for this to work properly 

>is described at 

>

>http://users.adelphia.net/~jgulley/me/index.html

>

>where Gulley gives the system.ini change needed.

>

>

>

>

> 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

My WinME experience seems counter to your information and experience. I've used System Monitor to track various memory manager items. As I load memory with various applications, the numbers and activity it reports are consistent with my 756mb being fully used as I would expect. Meanwhile the Win386.SWP file remains at zero bytes, or very very small in comparison to the memory used by my applications; it's only when I get really close to using all 756 that the SWP file begins to grow in any serious way. This with SuperMicro P6SBA motherboards.


On Friday, December 21, 2007 at 9:54 pm, C K wrote:
>Win 9x won't use over 512 meg even if you have more. The INI and some other changes/tweaks
>limits the memory Win 9X can address. Win 9X can't physically address/reference
>the physical memory to the virtual memory. MS has KB articles on it. It is a design
>limitation that they didn't plan on fixing as XP was on it's way and Win 9X is a
>hybrid system 16/32 bit system with built in limitations so they never planned to
>rewrite an old operating system.
>
>Even with the tweaks, some systems will not boot. I have two such motherboards (older
>Asus server class models)...
>
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Very interesting dialogue, all. The good news on my end is that I received, installed and the system recognized the newly added 256MB today for a grand total of 512. Not much to those of you who are computer wiz kids but a very nice thing for an amateur like me who doesn't know too much. Thanks again for all the help.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum