A performance issue

Boy, you sure give a guy his money's worth. And so do glee, Buffalo, Curt
Christianson, and Frank Zabkar.

I tried mixing the sticks. The bus was reset to 100MZ by jumpering.

The results seem to be a zero sum equation. The processor dropped from
1.6MX to 1.25MZ. And there seems to be no gain or loss in performance.

Oh, well. I think I'll just pull the stick and save it for another
machine--an OLD machine.


Dan


"MEB" meb@not wrote in message
...



"Curt Christianson" wrote in message
...
| I may be wrong, but I was told if you mix speeds, you were automatically
| limited to the slowest speed. I'm mixing 133 and 100, and what is more
| important to me is the added memory, not the speed. I don't believe one
| could actually see the difference between 100MHz and 133MHz, but the
| additional memory, yes. The biggest consideration in my opinion, is
whether
| or not the mis-matched memory will "play well" together.
|
| Fire away! vbg
|
| --
| HTH,
| Curt
|
| Windows Support Center
| http://aumha.org/

Along those lines; I have tried to address those potential issues
sufficiently through several discussions in this group:

Short, yes, the lowest "supported" CAS and/or speed:

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:823421

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:823473

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:823477

tried PC133 memstix - DBLBUFF & IFSHLP went corrupt/missing 02-22-06

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:807307

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:807352

The summary is don't try this anymo

The days of switching "any old memory" with "any old memory" or mixing
such
went the way of abilities to blindly overclock processors [though that
ability with memory lasted for several more years].

As memory manufacturers became more productive at module creation, and
specific processor/mother boards began to require specific and limited
modules; the ability to use that memory in the old fashion of "trial and
error" or reliance upon supposed new automatic BIOS recognition when
mix/matching went the way of the dinosaur when attempting to deal with
newer
controller chips in a mixed environment.

New module "controller chip" designs coupled with better QC apparently
allowed the manufacturer to essentially lock the supported speeds and
CAS/RAS available/or for which they could be used [Think Intel's better
manufacturing and QC allowing them to lock processors. SEE NOTE * ].
Mixing
those essentially locked modules, has been found to cause corruption
issues.
So the long held belief that CAS2 100 could easily replace or work with
133
CAS3 was/is no longer viable. Moreover, if CAS3 100 [which was/is the most
prevalent produced] is attempted at 133 at ANY CAS/RAS, numerous issues
pop-up. They may pass POST, but when actually used by the OS, the errors
abound. The same has been found true, at times, with 133 CAS2 attempted at
100.
All the major manufacturers openly supported, CAUTIONED, and specifically
noted on their websites and in their adverti$ing, that one must carefully
match the BIOS support, processor and the memory, as failing to do so,
likely would cause failures.
One can still find smaller manufacturers that create multi FSB/CAS
support
modules, though that's likely due to the controller chip they used, rather
than any real intent.

*This change over related directly with the Asian memory crash and burning
of a memory chip manufacturing plant. The investors and the "BANKS"
demanded
updated manufacturing techniques from the survivors. Siemans apparently
implemented this around the same time period.

|
| "Buffalo" wrote in message
| . ..
| If your PC100 DRAM is high quality, it may run just fine at 133MHz.
| Mine did.
| PS: I used it in combo with a stick of PC133 DRAM.
|
| "Rubyjack" wrote in message
| ...
| I have come into possession of a 64MB PC100 DRAM. My computer
currently
| has
| 128MB PC133 DRAM. Running W98SE.
|
| Can I run both DRAMS at 100MZ without damaging anything? If I can't
will
| I
| see a performance boost or degradation by setting the bus to 100MZ
and

| running both DRAMS?
|
|
| Thanks,
| Dan Hacker
|
| --
|
|

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group
for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as
if
nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________

"rubyjack" wrote in message
...
Boy, you sure give a guy his money's worth. And so do glee, Buffalo, Curt
Christianson, and Frank Zabkar.

I tried mixing the sticks. The bus was reset to 100MZ by jumpering.

The results seem to be a zero sum equation. The processor dropped from
1.6MX to 1.25MZ. And there seems to be no gain or loss in performance.

Oh, well. I think I'll just pull the stick and save it for another
machine--an OLD machine.


Dan

Did you try it a 133MHz with both sticks in?
If it runs that way you should see a boost in performance.
But you should back up your system, just in case.
Like I said earlier, it worked for me.
Buffalo

After MEB's post I'm a little worried about damaging something for squeezing
out a little bit of performance. The system seems to be okay as is, but
windows maybe freezing up a little more often.

Thanks for the help,
Dan Hacker

----- Original Message -----
From: "Buffalo"
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 8:40 PM
Subject: A performance issue



"rubyjack" wrote in message
...
Boy, you sure give a guy his money's worth. And so do glee, Buffalo,
Curt
Christianson, and Frank Zabkar.

I tried mixing the sticks. The bus was reset to 100MZ by jumpering.

The results seem to be a zero sum equation. The processor dropped from
1.6MX to 1.25MZ. And there seems to be no gain or loss in performance.

Oh, well. I think I'll just pull the stick and save it for another
machine--an OLD machine.


Dan

Did you try it a 133MHz with both sticks in?
If it runs that way you should see a boost in performance.
But you should back up your system, just in case.
Like I said earlier, it worked for me.
Buffalo

Thanks for the in-depth info. However, I can't figure out how to access it. I went to Google and did both a general group search and a search in Microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion. I searched for the numbers you referenced at the end of each line, but was only directed back to this message you posted.


Appreciate it,
Dan

"MEB" meb@not wrote in message ...



"Curt Christianson" wrote in message
...
| I may be wrong, but I was told if you mix speeds, you were automatically
| limited to the slowest speed. I'm mixing 133 and 100, and what is more
| important to me is the added memory, not the speed. I don't believe one
| could actually see the difference between 100MHz and 133MHz, but the
| additional memory, yes. The biggest consideration in my opinion, is
whether
| or not the mis-matched memory will "play well" together.
|
| Fire away! vbg
|
| --
| HTH,
| Curt
|
| Windows Support Center
| http://aumha.org/

Along those lines; I have tried to address those potential issues
sufficiently through several discussions in this group:

Short, yes, the lowest "supported" CAS and/or speed:

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:823421

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:823473

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:823477

tried PC133 memstix - DBLBUFF & IFSHLP went corrupt/missing 02-22-06

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:807307

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:807352

The summary is don't try this anymo

The days of switching "any old memory" with "any old memory" or mixing such
went the way of abilities to blindly overclock processors [though that
ability with memory lasted for several more years].

As memory manufacturers became more productive at module creation, and
specific processor/mother boards began to require specific and limited
modules; the ability to use that memory in the old fashion of "trial and
error" or reliance upon supposed new automatic BIOS recognition when
mix/matching went the way of the dinosaur when attempting to deal with newer
controller chips in a mixed environment.

New module "controller chip" designs coupled with better QC apparently
allowed the manufacturer to essentially lock the supported speeds and
CAS/RAS available/or for which they could be used [Think Intel's better
manufacturing and QC allowing them to lock processors. SEE NOTE * ]. Mixing
those essentially locked modules, has been found to cause corruption issues.
So the long held belief that CAS2 100 could easily replace or work with 133
CAS3 was/is no longer viable. Moreover, if CAS3 100 [which was/is the most
prevalent produced] is attempted at 133 at ANY CAS/RAS, numerous issues
pop-up. They may pass POST, but when actually used by the OS, the errors
abound. The same has been found true, at times, with 133 CAS2 attempted at
100.
All the major manufacturers openly supported, CAUTIONED, and specifically
noted on their websites and in their adverti$ing, that one must carefully
match the BIOS support, processor and the memory, as failing to do so,
likely would cause failures.
One can still find smaller manufacturers that create multi FSB/CAS support
modules, though that's likely due to the controller chip they used, rather
than any real intent.

*This change over related directly with the Asian memory crash and burning
of a memory chip manufacturing plant. The investors and the "BANKS" demanded
updated manufacturing techniques from the survivors. Siemans apparently
implemented this around the same time period.

|
| "Buffalo" wrote in message
| . ..
| If your PC100 DRAM is high quality, it may run just fine at 133MHz.
| Mine did.
| PS: I used it in combo with a stick of PC133 DRAM.
|
| "Rubyjack" wrote in message
| ...
| I have come into possession of a 64MB PC100 DRAM. My computer
currently
| has
| 128MB PC133 DRAM. Running W98SE.
|
| Can I run both DRAMS at 100MZ without damaging anything? If I can't
will
| I
| see a performance boost or degradation by setting the bus to 100MZ and

| running both DRAMS?
|
|
| Thanks,
| Dan Hacker
|
| --
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
| ---
| Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if
nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________

"rubyjack" wrote in message
...
After MEB's post I'm a little worried about damaging something for squeezing
out a little bit of performance. The system seems to be okay as is, but
windows maybe freezing up a little more often.

Thanks for the help,
Dan Hacker

Better safe than sorry. I gambled and won, then again I don't mind spending
hours fixing my mistakes (as Glee,PCR,Gary and others will attest to, as they
helped pull me out of some tough ones). :-)

I would rather have the cpu run faster with less ram than the other way around.

Ram is fairly cheap now, if you want to buy some. Match it up if you wish, or
just buy a matching pair.
If you are experiencing slowdowns or other problems that you think may be fixed
by adding ram, please post them under a new topic and I'm sure someone here
would happily give you some good ideas.

"Buffalo" wrote in message . ..


Better safe than sorry. I gambled and won, then again I don't mind spending
hours fixing my mistakes (as Glee,PCR,Gary and others will attest to, as they
helped pull me out of some tough ones). :-)

I like safe! While there is a great deal of satisfaction from fixing a problem, I find the frustration may not have been worth it.

I would rather have the cpu run faster with less ram than the other way around.

I don't think he will notice the difference between 1.6GHZ and 1.25GHZ. But I definitely see your point.

Ram is fairly cheap now, if you want to buy some. Match it up if you wish, or
just buy a matching pair.

"Waste not, want not." The 64MB stick was a freebie, and I was just trying to squeeze out a _little_ more performance.


If you are experiencing slowdowns or other problems that you think may be fixed
by adding ram, please post them under a new topic and I'm sure someone here
would happily give you some good ideas.

My wife had only 64MB in her W98SE system, and was s-l-u-g-g-i-s-h. I went to e-bay and got a good deal on some used, compatible sticks (I did my homework before buying) and the difference was amazing!

Hey Dan,

At least we had fun, and learned a bit.

Take care.

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
http://aumha.org/

"rubyjack" wrote in message
...
Boy, you sure give a guy his money's worth. And so do glee, Buffalo, Curt
Christianson, and Frank Zabkar.

I tried mixing the sticks. The bus was reset to 100MZ by jumpering.

The results seem to be a zero sum equation. The processor dropped from
1.6MX to 1.25MZ. And there seems to be no gain or loss in performance.

Oh, well. I think I'll just pull the stick and save it for another
machine--an OLD machine.


Dan


"MEB" meb@not wrote in message
...



"Curt Christianson" wrote in message
...
| I may be wrong, but I was told if you mix speeds, you were
automatically
| limited to the slowest speed. I'm mixing 133 and 100, and what is more
| important to me is the added memory, not the speed. I don't believe one
| could actually see the difference between 100MHz and 133MHz, but the
| additional memory, yes. The biggest consideration in my opinion, is
whether
| or not the mis-matched memory will "play well" together.
|
| Fire away! vbg
|
| --
| HTH,
| Curt
|
| Windows Support Center
| http://aumha.org/

Along those lines; I have tried to address those potential issues
sufficiently through several discussions in this group:

Short, yes, the lowest "supported" CAS and/or speed:

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:823421

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:823473

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:823477

tried PC133 memstix - DBLBUFF & IFSHLP went corrupt/missing 02-22-06

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:807307

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:807352

The summary is don't try this anymo

The days of switching "any old memory" with "any old memory" or mixing
such
went the way of abilities to blindly overclock processors [though that
ability with memory lasted for several more years].

As memory manufacturers became more productive at module creation, and
specific processor/mother boards began to require specific and limited
modules; the ability to use that memory in the old fashion of "trial and
error" or reliance upon supposed new automatic BIOS recognition when
mix/matching went the way of the dinosaur when attempting to deal with
newer
controller chips in a mixed environment.

New module "controller chip" designs coupled with better QC apparently
allowed the manufacturer to essentially lock the supported speeds and
CAS/RAS available/or for which they could be used [Think Intel's better
manufacturing and QC allowing them to lock processors. SEE NOTE * ].
Mixing
those essentially locked modules, has been found to cause corruption
issues.
So the long held belief that CAS2 100 could easily replace or work with
133
CAS3 was/is no longer viable. Moreover, if CAS3 100 [which was/is the
most
prevalent produced] is attempted at 133 at ANY CAS/RAS, numerous issues
pop-up. They may pass POST, but when actually used by the OS, the errors
abound. The same has been found true, at times, with 133 CAS2 attempted
at
100.
All the major manufacturers openly supported, CAUTIONED, and
specifically
noted on their websites and in their adverti$ing, that one must carefully
match the BIOS support, processor and the memory, as failing to do so,
likely would cause failures.
One can still find smaller manufacturers that create multi FSB/CAS
support
modules, though that's likely due to the controller chip they used,
rather
than any real intent.

*This change over related directly with the Asian memory crash and
burning
of a memory chip manufacturing plant. The investors and the "BANKS"
demanded
updated manufacturing techniques from the survivors. Siemans apparently
implemented this around the same time period.

|
| "Buffalo" wrote in message
| . ..
| If your PC100 DRAM is high quality, it may run just fine at 133MHz.
| Mine did.
| PS: I used it in combo with a stick of PC133 DRAM.
|
| "Rubyjack" wrote in message
| ...
| I have come into possession of a 64MB PC100 DRAM. My computer
currently
| has
| 128MB PC133 DRAM. Running W98SE.
|
| Can I run both DRAMS at 100MZ without damaging anything? If I can't
will
| I
| see a performance boost or degradation by setting the bus to 100MZ
and

| running both DRAMS?
|
|
| Thanks,
| Dan Hacker
|
| --
|
|

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group
for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as
if
nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________

Buffalo wrote:
| "rubyjack" wrote in message
| ...
| After MEB's post I'm a little worried about damaging something for
| squeezing out a little bit of performance. The system seems to be
| okay as is, but windows maybe freezing up a little more often.
|
| Thanks for the help,
| Dan Hacker
|
| Better safe than sorry. I gambled and won, then again I don't mind
| spending hours fixing my mistakes (as Glee,PCR,Gary and others will
| attest to, as they helped pull me out of some tough ones). :-)

I attest to it. But if I had the option to change it, probably I'd leave
the processor speed where it is these days. There was a day I would play
with such a thing, though. But it came & went!

| I would rather have the cpu run faster with less ram than the other
| way around.
|
| Ram is fairly cheap now, if you want to buy some. Match it up if you
| wish, or just buy a matching pair.
| If you are experiencing slowdowns or other problems that you think
| may be fixed by adding ram, please post them under a new topic and
| I'm sure someone here would happily give you some good ideas.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR