Hey everyone. its been a long while since ive made a post on these forums.

 

anyway,

 

I need some help upgrading my computers RAM. I havent ever upgraded anything before so i don't have much of an idea what to do, except for what ive learnt searching google.

 

I found a test thing on a website called crutial.com or something, that told me this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now i know that for some systems you have to install 2 chips at once or something, but i cant work out whether or not thats the case for mine. Can anyone tell?

 

any other advice anyone could give would be greatly appreciated too!

 

thanks

I don't know anything about the 2 chip stuff, but here's a few tips. All the RAM has to be the same speed, different makes/models are ok but matching models/makes work alot better. Also, use CPU-Z and get your mobo info, google it and see what the max speed it can take, it'll be most likely around 667mhz if you're using DDR, maybe less.

pc3200=400mhz, but id just buy a 2x1gb pc3200 kit and put them in the same colored slots,and the two 256mbs in the other same colored slot, start somputer and youre done!

ok thanks for the help guys!

I'd suggest that you order the RAM off Crucial, because it has the exact RAM that is compatible with your Mobo.

 

 

 

By two Chips, do you mean two sticks of RAM? Because yeah, you may need to purchase a Kit, that has two of the exact same make/model/chip count, so it will be 100% Compatible.

 

 

 

I'd suggest you buy a 2x1 GB kit, that is by far enough.. I mean Crysis recommends 2GB of RAM, but sure upgrade to 4GB if you want. I just think it'll be pointless.

Before I recommend adding X amount of ram;

 

What do you use your PC for?

 

What OS are you using (Vista, XP, ect)?

Before I recommend adding X amount of ram;

 

What do you use your PC for?

 

What OS are you using (Vista, XP, ect)?

 

I can tell you from their picture that they are running at least Windows XP, if it ain't a Mac or Linux. Otherwise, it wouldn't boot just simply due to lack of mobo drivers and ability to handle things like New Java Versions and/or ActiveX Objects like what would be needed to read through to the hardware layers. :(

 

 

 

Also, it doesn't really matter what they are using the computer for. Today's OS'es are RAM HOGS. The more RAM, the better. :P

 

 

 

~Mr. D. V. Devnull

I can tell you from their picture that they are running at least Windows XP, if it ain't a Mac or Linux. Otherwise, it wouldn't boot just simply due to lack of mobo drivers and ability to handle things like New Java Versions and/or ActiveX Objects like what would be needed to read through to the hardware layers. :(

 

 

 

Also, it doesn't really matter what they are using the computer for. Today's OS'es are RAM HOGS. The more RAM, the better. :P

 

 

 

~Mr. D. V. Devnull

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Windows 2000 is still in use a lot today and will allow you to use the system scanner as well as ActiveX and the newer versions of Java.

 

Yes the newer OS's are ram hogs, but if all this guy does is surf the web I don't see why he would need more then 1gb on 2000, XP or linux, or more then 2gb on Vista.

Before I recommend adding X amount of ram;

 

What do you use your PC for?

 

What OS are you using (Vista, XP, ect)?

 

I can tell you from their picture that they are running at least Windows XP, if it ain't a Mac or Linux. Otherwise, it wouldn't boot just simply due to lack of mobo drivers and ability to handle things like New Java Versions and/or ActiveX Objects like what would be needed to read through to the hardware layers. :(

 

 

 

Also, it doesn't really matter what they are using the computer for. Today's OS'es are RAM HOGS. The more RAM, the better. :P

 

 

 

~Mr. D. V. Devnull

 

 

 

Do you have a source for this information, or did you just make it up? Wherever you got it - I think I just proved you wrong.

 

 

 

In future Dev/Nevul or whatever you name is, provide source and proof. Otherwise you're going to get proved one and look like an idiot. Anyone stating facts should always provide a source and/or proof to the "fact" I think it's pretty much a rule of the internet.

In future Dev/Nevul or whatever you name is, provide source and proof. Otherwise you're going to get proved one and look like an idiot. Anyone stating facts should always provide a source and/or proof to the "fact" I think it's pretty much a rule of the internet.

 

 

 

+1, finally it's not just me that is proving him wrong in threads :) .

 

 

 

I have used 2000 with 128MBs of ram also and it wasn't that bad. I found 256MBs to very usable on 2000 for web browsing and basic stuff.

 

 

 

People today are suggesting too much ram for these computers when all people want to do is browse the web and edit some photos. You don't need 2GBs of ram, even in Vista to do that. Not everybody is a gamer. The problem is that gamers and computer enthusiasts are suggesting the upgrades and they think having 5 programs open at once is normal for the average person.

In future Dev/Nevul or whatever you name is, provide source and proof. Otherwise you're going to get proved one and look like an idiot. Anyone stating facts should always provide a source and/or proof to the "fact" I think it's pretty much a rule of the internet.

 

 

 

+1, finally it's not just me that is proving him wrong in threads :) .

 

 

 

I have used 2000 with 64MBs of ram also and it wasn't that bad. I found 128MBs to very usable on 2000 for web browsing and basic stuff.

 

 

 

People today are suggesting too much ram for these computers when all people want to do is browse the web and edit some photos. You don't need 2GBs of ram, even in Vista to do that. Not everybody is a gamer. The problem is that gamers and computer enthusiasts are suggesting the upgrades and they think having 5 programs open at once is normal for the average person.

 

 

 

True. My grandparents PC uses 512mb of ram on vista and it runs 'ok' for general web browsing, although personally if you use vista I would go with a gig minimum if you aren't even gaming.

 

 

 

 

 

As far as XP goes 512mb will work, but to be honest a gig is cheap these days -- I mean like dirt cheap.

 

 

 

 

 

And @ Pure_Mage: Devnull is constantly wrong about stuff, I'd just ignore him for the most part.

And @ Pure_Mage: Devnull is constantly wrong about stuff, I'd just ignore him for the most part.

 

 

 

I'm aware of that but installing a 13 year old operating system and getting it online was a bit of fun anyway. :lol:

And @ Pure_Mage: Devnull is constantly wrong about stuff, I'd just ignore him for the most part.

 

I'm aware of that but installing a 13 year old operating system and getting it online was a bit of fun anyway. :lol:

 

Hey, all you nuts, I'm kinda glad to be proved wrong this time, especially since I generated a bit of extra discussion and learned something in the process. So thanks for all the extra info. I've had this crazy assumption lately that people who have been coding stuff have been intentionally making it so it won't work with earlier software. It is good to see some that aren't holding to this creed. 8-)

 

 

 

BTW, flaming others? I just ain't any of your styles, seriously. Plus it makes you look kinda bad. :P

 

 

 

One other thing... Pure_MageUK, could you put that oversize image in hide tags? It is really stretching the thread sideways. :(

 

 

 

~Mr. D. V. Devnull