MoNkEy MaGiC
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 03
Location: West - London Drives: Corsa GSi
User status: Offline
|
Had windows ME...it crashed badly so i formated HDD and tried reinstalling it...it wudnt! so i tried installing xp...it wudnt! so i upgraded my BIOS and it would then fail the memory test in boot up of my 2 x 133mhz 256MB SD RAM! i tried them one at a time and it only accepted one of them and only 128MB of it! then xp installed sucessfully!
do you think my RAM has become damaged?.... which caused ME to crash in first place and wudnt reinstall it and XP??
What settings in BIOS menu can i change/alter to let it accept my RAM?
[Edited on 04-11-2004 by MoNkEy MaGiC]
|
Siberia
Member
Registered: 9th Oct 03
Location: Leprechaun Land Drives : Zafira GSI
User status: Offline
|
what proccesser are u running with?
|
MoNkEy MaGiC
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 03
Location: West - London Drives: Corsa GSi
User status: Offline
|
its a pentium3, 700Mhz?
|
Andrew
Member
Registered: 5th May 04
Location: Skoda Octavia Estate, Ford Puma
User status: Offline
|
Buy a new PC 
I had 3 128MB PC-133 chips in my old PC (spare PC as i can't even give it away ) but Win XP kept crashing so i took one out as it was bought after the other 2 and a diff make and now works fine 
|
MoNkEy MaGiC
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 03
Location: West - London Drives: Corsa GSi
User status: Offline
|
i got two 256mb ram which are different brands also from each other??
i tried them one at a time... one of them it counts the full 256mb but says memory test failure! the second it counts it only upto 128mb even though its a 256mb stick, but does not say memory test failure!
is their any settings i can change in bios to help solve this??
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
chances are this is motherbaord problem rather than memory if so many sticks are goig hoo haa. Since you were probably running a FAT system on ME, there may be some problems/conflicts between the northbridge and CPU/HDD.
|
mjw_2k2
Member
Registered: 18th Sep 03
Location: Anglesey, North Wales
User status: Offline
|
try resetting your motherboard to defaults, or even clearing cmos, pop the mem in and see if its any better!
|
_Allan_
Member
Registered: 24th Mar 04
User status: Offline
|
I reckon XP would cripple your machine anyway. Get a new PC.
|
Andrew
Member
Registered: 5th May 04
Location: Skoda Octavia Estate, Ford Puma
User status: Offline
|
Sounds like your new BIOS may be corrupted. Try downloading it again and installing it or if you backed up your previous version roll back to that.
XP will run fine on your system for documents, internet etc, it does on my old one.
|
leeshez
Member
Registered: 3rd May 01
Location: Great Harwood, Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
My pc is 700mhz and it is so dam slow but my laptop is so much faster 
|
MoNkEy MaGiC
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 03
Location: West - London Drives: Corsa GSi
User status: Offline
|
i re-installed the BIOS, its ok, xp is installed ok and overall computer is ok, BUT i think my RAM is fooked! hence the crashing of win-ME and wudnt let me install it again and xp, the new BIOS is better so all i think it did was detect that somthing is wrong with the memory which is wat caused win ME to crash and not let me reinstall?? wat u think??
TTT
|
Richie
Member
Registered: 3rd Dec 02
Location: Newport, Wales
User status: Offline
|
dont think the P3 supports 133mhz ram, or maybe your mobo dont support it. Not all ram modules are backwards compatable. Also make sure error checking is disabled in the bios as that makes some ram go tits up
|
MoNkEy MaGiC
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 03
Location: West - London Drives: Corsa GSi
User status: Offline
|
after the memory test in boot up, it says "suggested DRAM clock is 133" what does this mean????
it might only be properly compatable with 100mhz ram sticks but... my windows ME ran ok for 2 years with the two 133mhz 256 sd ram!!! although it didnt seem that fast really compared to my old single 128mb sd ram!!
maybe all this time it wasnt really properly compatable? and has now gone pop???
|
AdiSRI
Member
Registered: 1st May 02
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
yopu could get a much better new pc for £300 - £400 just keep ya mouse etc....
Better than mucking about spending money trying to fix something that will still be craop once its fixed...
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by _Allan_
I reckon XP would cripple your machine anyway. Get a new PC.
On my old machine, a 400mhz celeron, XP runs just dandy
|
James_DT
Member
Registered: 9th Apr 04
Location: Cambridgeshire
User status: Offline
|
And on my ex's 333mhz P2. Perfectly fine.
Also, the P3 does support 133mhz FSB and RAM.
|
_Allan_
Member
Registered: 24th Mar 04
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey24
quote:
Originally posted by _Allan_
I reckon XP would cripple your machine anyway. Get a new PC.
On my old machine, a 400mhz celeron, XP runs just dandy
That's not my point. XP is very memory intensive and takes up more HD space than previous OS. I don't see the point of putting it on an old machine. It would make more sense to use 95 or 98.
[Edited on 04-11-2004 by _Allan_]
|
MoNkEy MaGiC
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 03
Location: West - London Drives: Corsa GSi
User status: Offline
|
95 and 98 are shite compared to XP!
i would rather sacrifice some speed and have xp!
i had 98se for 2 weeks!!! its so BASIC compared to xp!
xp is one of the most stable operating systems thats why it takes more HD space and cpu power to run!
i reckon it would run ok on my P3 700mhz with 512MB ram, maybe not as fast as 95 or 98 but wont be too far of
but to have it on a 400mhz or 333mhz machine is pushing it! but it depends what you use it for really
|
PaulW
Member
Registered: 26th Jan 03
Location: Atherton, Greater Manchester
User status: Offline
|
I used to run XP Pro on a Mobile P3-650 with 256Mb RAM fairly well! was a good day-to-day system!
but just because XP sooo massivly big on the install, doesnt mean its better. DOS took up the best part of around 350K and was rock-solid... its mainly down to how fooked the install is & also how much crap has been loaded into & unloaded, etc...
Win 98 can be just as stable, if not more so than XP, if its set up & used properly.
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by _Allan_
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey24
quote:
Originally posted by _Allan_
I reckon XP would cripple your machine anyway. Get a new PC.
On my old machine, a 400mhz celeron, XP runs just dandy
That's not my point. XP is very memory intensive and takes up more HD space than previous OS. I don't see the point of putting it on an old machine. It would make more sense to use 95 or 98.
[Edited on 04-11-2004 by _Allan_]
So what it takes up more HD space?? HDD's are dirt cheap these days. Space is no longer a problem. XP runs quicker than 98se ever did, it is better written and much more stable. Please reply only if you know what you are talking about.
|
Makarus
Member
Registered: 25th Jun 02
Location: Nottingham/Derbyshire Boarder.
User status: Offline
|
XP doesn't run quicker than 98 ever did, the basic system requirements for XP are higher than 98, its more graphically intensive, more memory intensive, requires large swap files etc. Just because of the fact that he latest computer equipment is powerful enough to run XP smoothly doesn't mean that its quicker. Windows 98 ran on lowly PC's well, try running XP on a lowly machine and you wont get anywhere fast.
98 was extremely stable, XP still doesn't compare in stability to 98. There were sooooo many bugs in XP when it was first introduced, and there still is SP2 has come along and with that so many more updates too, XP will never be complete, there is always an exploit or a issue regarding security and stability.
Also XP isn't better written than 98. XP poached half of NT kernel and then patched some more general microsoft shite into it to make it become an OS in its own right. 98 was almost as good as the 9x series could have got, then they went and fucked it up with ME.
|
_Allan_
Member
Registered: 24th Mar 04
User status: Offline
|
Thank you Markus. Cybermonkey don't try and say I don't know what I'm talking about simply because you don't agree. Putting XP on an older, low spec machine is not the way to go. It wasn't designed with them in mind, it wasn't sold with them in mind. End of story and older OS like 95 or 98 or even 2000 will run far smoother on an older machine end of story.
|
MoNkEy MaGiC
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 03
Location: West - London Drives: Corsa GSi
User status: Offline
|
any other ideas? besides getting new RAM or new PC
TTT
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
If you definately want XP then yeah, new machine.
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by _Allan_
Thank you Markus. Cybermonkey don't try and say I don't know what I'm talking about simply because you don't agree. Putting XP on an older, low spec machine is not the way to go. It wasn't designed with them in mind, it wasn't sold with them in mind. End of story and older OS like 95 or 98 or even 2000 will run far smoother on an older machine end of story.
NO PGTF win 98 was abysmal compared to XP, frequent BSOD, unexplained compatability issues that were never dealt with, massive reg corruption problems, and dont get me started on ME. XP was designed to benefit both older and newer machines, along with faster file access (mainly down to NTFS conversion from FAT32) meant that any half decent computer could run it easily. 95/98 runs slower on my old machine that XP. You have given no solid proof as to why XP should run slower.
Makarus, "try running XP on a lowly machine and you wont get anywhere fast. ", i run XP on a lowly machine much more succesfully than win 95/98se/ME. You are right about XP using much of the basics and foundations of NT platforms, but all they did was stick an GUI to it, lo and behold, you have XP. Both a functional, reliable OS, which WILL run happily on a low spec machine.
|
