Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsWindows VistaWindows XPWindows MeWindows 98Windows 95Virtual PCInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressWindows MediaSecurity
Related Topics
MS Server ProductsMS OfficePC HardwareMore Topics ...

Windows Forum / Windows 98 / General Topics / December 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Adding memory causes slowdown?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Rubyjack - 09 Dec 2006 22:25 GMT
I just added 256MB of memory to my computer and now it seems to be running
slower!  The computer seems to "seize up" for a matter of a few seconds up
to ten seconds.  This occurs at five to fifteen second intervals. However,
the keyboard buffer seems to be unaffected-whatever I type in is input when
the computer finishes "seizing up" as well as the system clock.  When I
upgraded from 64MB to 128MB a few months ago, my system really zinged.

The old 64MB chip I kept is a Toshiba THMY6480F1BEG-80 140A0501 64MB
8x(8Mx8) SDRAM PC100-222-622 (CL3 up to 125MHz) (CL2 up to 100MHz) which
appears as DIMM 0 (Bank 0 : 64MB SDRAM 2-2-2-0CL).

The other two modules are Micron 18LSDT1672AG-10EC7 060636C2 128MB 18x(8Mx8)
ECC SDRAM PC100-222-622 (CL3 up to 125MHz) (CL2 up to 100MHz) which appear
as DIMM 1 (Bank 2 : 64MB SDRAM 2-2-2-0CL and Bank 3 : 64MB SDRAM 2-2-2-0CL)
and DIMM 2 (Bank 4 : 64MB SDRAM 2-2-2-0CL Bank 5 : 64MB SDRAM 2-2-2-0CL).

All three DIMMs pass the post test fine.  Also, IBM diagnostics and
Docmemory give a thumbs up.

The computer is an old IBM PC 300PL with a PII 350Mz CPU.  There are only
three memory slots with a maximum of 128MB's per slot.

This is really frustrating me as I had expected to see a boost in
performance not a decrease!

Any help/thoughts would be appreciated..........

Dan Hacker
Bob Harris - 09 Dec 2006 23:18 GMT
Not all combination of memory that should work will work, and mixing brands
and speeds is rarely a good idea.

Try removing all memory and installed only the newest chips and see what
that does.

Also, are you sure that your PC can handle all that memory.  Just because it
fits does mean it will work.  Some motherboards have limitations less than
the total that can be physically inserted.

>I just added 256MB of memory to my computer and now it seems to be running
> slower!  The computer seems to "seize up" for a matter of a few seconds up
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Dan Hacker
Richard in AZ - 09 Dec 2006 23:49 GMT
Did you check with a reputable memory supplier for exactly what memory your make and model would
use?
Try www.crucial.com for a check.
A quick look showed a whole lot of models of the IBM PC300PL series.
Each took a different type of RAM chip.
Most of which were PC133's.

>I just added 256MB of memory to my computer and now it seems to be running
> slower!  The computer seems to "seize up" for a matter of a few seconds up
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Dan Hacker
Gary S. Terhune - 10 Dec 2006 02:04 GMT
I checked there, also, and ran through the list of models that fit the bill.
The least amount of RAM supported is 384MB. That's how much the OP's machine
has.

All told, the system is probably within specs, and the additional sticks
match on the surface, so I'd assume that it's a matter of the machine not
living up to specs. Still, even supposedly matched sticks aren't necessarily
matched. Even simply coming from a different batch can be a problem. The new
sticks being from Micron, I would suggest contacting their support for
assistance. They're pretty good about such things, and if all else fails
they might replace the sticks or take one back.

However, first, a full RAM test would be a good idea.
http://www.simmtester.com/PAGE/products/doc/docinfo.asp
http://www.memtest86.com/

Signature

Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.org/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://grystmill.org/articles/security.htm

> Did you check with a reputable memory supplier for exactly what
> memory your make and model would use?
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>>
>> Dan Hacker
Franc Zabkar - 10 Dec 2006 03:14 GMT
>I just added 256MB of memory to my computer and now it seems to be running
>slower!  The computer seems to "seize up" for a matter of a few seconds up
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
>Dan Hacker

Some chipsets will only cache a certain amount of system RAM. For
example, my SiS5597/5598 chipset will only cache up to 128MB. This
means that if I add more memory the system will slow down. However, I
could still see a benefit if I have a memory hungry app which would
otherwise rely on virtual memory, ie an app that swaps to disc.

I doubt that this would explain your "seize ups", though.

- Franc Zabkar
Signature

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Hugh Candlin - 10 Dec 2006 04:41 GMT
> I just added 256MB of memory to my computer and now it seems to be running
> slower!  The computer seems to "seize up" for a matter of a few seconds up
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Dan Hacker

I specifically remember an issue with some motherboards
which would not work when all three memory banks were populated.

It may have been Rambus boards, though, so that may not be relative here.

However, this might....

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=77909774&m=501000044631

Specifically,

"Mixing RAM
Another area fraught with myth and legend.
"Mix different modules", they say, "and the spirits of fractional
recognition shall haunt thee!"
In reality, it's more likely to be a case of density problems, as seen
above.
The user has 64MB in his BX based P2, adds 256MB, only sees 192MB
because his 256MB stick contains 32Mx4 DRAMS,
which BX can only address as 16Mx4, thus is only seen as 128MB.

The other mixing problem can be timings, which is either PEBCAK or a BIOS
bug.
Usually the former. User has his PC2700 set to 2-6-2-2,
adds more PC2700 which is only specified for CL2.5,
and forgets to update his RAM timings.

The result is an overclocked DIMM which may or may not work.
If in doubt, put BIOS settings on "Auto" for everything RAM related
- BIOS will then ask the RAM how fast it can go.

Finally, mixing different densities (getting them in the wrong order)
can cause problems. The lowest density should be nearest
to the chipset, since it is likely to have the most DRAMs on it,
and thus be a heavier load on the bus.

This can cause problems associated with either of the two mixing
problems above, so eliminate those
(i.e. VIA chipsets have no problem with density,
and you can check your timings) before assuming this.

Swapping slots usually solves a problem caused by this."
PCR - 10 Dec 2006 19:14 GMT
| All three DIMMs pass the post test fine.  Also, IBM diagnostics and
| Docmemory give a thumbs up.

(1) Still, here are other RAM testers...
http://www.simmtester.com/PAGE/products/doc/docinfo.asp RAM tester
http://www.memtest86.com/ RAM tester
http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp RAM tester

But are you sure it isn't something else causing the pauses?

(2) Do you have an exotic RAM setting?

    (a) Is anything checked at...
         "START button, Run, MSConfig, Advanced button",
         other than Enable Startup Menu?

    (b) Is there anything in...
         "MSConfig, System.ini tab, [vcache] section"?

    (c) In the [386enh] section, is there a "MaxPhysPage" entry?

    (d) Is Windows properly managing the Swap File?
         It manages it based on what is shown shadowed in min & max
         at "R-Clk My Computer, Properties, Performance tab, Virtual
         Memory button". That is OK at defaults of zero & "No maximum".

(3) I know I can get that symptom at times by turning on McAfee's
auto-System Scan. Maybe try the clean boot procedure in Terhune's
signature, or...

"START button, Run, MSConfig" & turn off the Startup Group, Config.sys &
Autoexec.bat. (Note: when you later turn them back on, all items in them
will get checked. So, note what may be unchecked first.)

Do you get the delays now? If not, there is some troubleshooting to
do, using MSConfig...

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;281965
How to Troubleshoot Using the Msconfig Utility with Windows 98
(281965) - This article describes how to use the Microsoft System
Configuration (Msconfig) utility to troubleshoot configuration errors in
Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition.

BUT BE CAREFUL-- better not disable System.ini & Win.ini, because that
can be trouble. Well, if you are sure of your Registry backups, actually
those two can be recovered this way...

(a) Boot to DOS. (Hold Ctrl for the Startup Menu, & select "Command
Prompt Only".)
(b) Scanreg  /Restore
(c) Ctrl-Alt Del to Windows.

It will offer five dates. Choose the one of the last successful boot, to
start. These backups are done at boot, not at shut down. This should be
safe to do, if you haven't done anything to files in the mean time. This
will not restore files other than those .ini's & the Registry. It only
restores settings.

Signature

Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

| I just added 256MB of memory to my computer and now it seems to be running
| slower!  The computer seems to "seize up" for a matter of a few seconds up
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
|
| Dan Hacker
Rubyjack - 24 Dec 2006 16:10 GMT
I would like to thank Bob Harris, Richard in AZ, Gary S, Terhune, Franc
Zabkar, Hugh Candlin, and PCR for their replies.  I would have replied
sooner, but life kept intruding the more important things, like computing.

It took me awhile to work through all the websites, tests, and suggestions
that I was given.  The answer to my problem was two fold.  The first step
came from another thread talking about "hopping cursors."  I went to
Msconfig and eliminated some startup programs.  This brought the seizing
down to a bearable level.  However, the real fix came when I removed the old
stick of memory.

Going back to Sandra Lite I noticed that the new memory was error
correcting, but the old memory did not seem to be.  I pulled the old stick,
and lo-and-behold, the improvement in performance was achieved!

I really appreciate the help offered to me and others in this forum.  The
wealth of knowledge here has greatly advanced my computer skills/knowledge.

Thanks,
Dan Hacker

Signature

Madness takes its toll.  Please have exact change.

> I just added 256MB of memory to my computer and now it seems to be running
> slower!  The computer seems to "seize up" for a matter of a few seconds up
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Dan Hacker
PCR - 24 Dec 2006 19:19 GMT
You are welcome. Merry Christmas &/or Happy Holiday. Glad you got to the
bottom of it & have found the time to ignore life again, like, uh...
Terhune & Candlin & Zabcar!

Signature

Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

| I would like to thank Bob Harris, Richard in AZ, Gary S, Terhune, Franc
| Zabkar, Hugh Candlin, and PCR for their replies.  I would have replied
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
| >
| > Dan Hacker
Gary S. Terhune - 28 Dec 2006 01:38 GMT
Glad you found the problem, and yes, ECC and non-ECC RAM don't play well
together.

Signature

Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

> I would like to thank Bob Harris, Richard in AZ, Gary S, Terhune, Franc
> Zabkar, Hugh Candlin, and PCR for their replies.  I would have replied
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> >
> > Dan Hacker
Rubyjack - 28 Dec 2006 15:36 GMT
I really appreciate the time you (and others) devote to help us less
fortunate users.  This is one of the things that make computing such a joy!

Dan Hacker
(I know I should be better at this with a name like mine, but..........)

Signature

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Madness takes its toll.  Please have exact change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

> Glad you found the problem, and yes, ECC and non-ECC RAM don't play well
> together.
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> > >
> > > Dan Hacker
Gary S. Terhune - 30 Dec 2006 07:05 GMT
You're welcome. Funny thing is, for me at least, and I'm betting it's true
for most regulars here, it is precisely this vocation of peer-to-peer
support that makes computing such a joy, <s>. I'd been learning on my own
for maybe a year and a half, first with Win95 and then with Win98, building
and rebuilding my system, trying new apps, etc., but if I hadn't found these
newsgroups I'm sure the whole topic of computer maintenance and use would
have started to bore me to tears. (Been at it since the beginning of '99.)

Signature

Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

> I really appreciate the time you (and others) devote to help us less
> fortunate users.  This is one of the things that make computing such
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
>>>>
>>>> Dan Hacker
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.