Specialty Forums
Security and Virus
General Hardware
CPUs/Overclocking
Networking
Digital Photo/Video
Office Software
PC Gaming
Console Gaming
Programming
Database
Web Development
Digital Home

General Forums
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 95/98
Windows Me
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Win Server 2008
Win Server 2003
Windows 3.1
Linux
PDAs
BeOS
Novell Netware
OpenVMS
Solaris
Disk Op. System
Unix
Mac
OS/2

Drivers
Driver Scan
Driver Forum

Software
Automatic Updates

BIOS Updates

My Computing.Net

Solution Center

Free IT eBook

Howtos

Site Search

Message Find

RSS Feeds

Install Guides

Data Recovery

About

Home
Reply to Message Icon Go to Main Page Icon

Subject: Ram Difficulties

Original Message
Name: windowsme
Date: March 31, 2008 at 11:43:58 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
OS: Windows ME
CPU/Ram: Intel? RAM: 64MB
Model/Manufacturer: IBM NetVista 2257
Comment:
Hi,

I have some RAM difficulties with my IBM NetVista 2257 computer. Initially, there's 64MB SDRAM PC133... I wanted a serious upgrade so I bought the 256MB SDRAM PC133. I did my research before hand and found that this would be suitable. But the thing is, I installed it properly (clips clicked and all) yet everytime I tried to boot it, it would give me the good ol' beeping sound! Taking out the 256 module made everything normal.

I don't understand what the problem is so I was wondering if anyone else had any input?


Report Offensive Message For Removal

Response Number 1
Name: DAVEINCAPS
Date: March 31, 2008 at 12:25:12 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
Your new ram must either be bad or incompatible. Most of the time those problems are due to the newer sticks of ram using higher density chips that older chipsets can't deal with. In general, the more chips on a stick of ram the lower the density they are.

You can check at www.crucial.com for compatible ram. You can check ebay too. If you find a stick with 8 chips on each side it will almost certainly be compatible.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 2
Name: windowsme
Date: March 31, 2008 at 12:31:19 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
I checked... the module is most definitely compatible, I'm sure of it. 8 chips on both sides. I have yet to contact IBM about it, since the computer is about 7 years old as it is.

Surely there must be an answer out there!?


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 3
Name: Viking
Date: March 31, 2008 at 12:49:03 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
The memory might well be the right memory, but if you need a later BIOS flash to utilize it, then that's what it needs. Whether you can find the last BIOS update for the machine is another matter though.

I take it you've put it in the right slot?


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 4
Name: Viking
Date: March 31, 2008 at 13:07:08 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/s...

That's the page you want, you'll have to check what release you are on and then go through the text files on each BIOS update on the page to see what changes were made to see if there was a memory timings fix or something.

Details of how to flash should also be on there.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 5
Name: DAVEINCAPS
Date: March 31, 2008 at 13:54:28 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
Where did you get the ram stick? Was it new or used? Also, make sure the memory slot is clean.

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 6
Name: Viking
Date: March 31, 2008 at 15:12:06 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
Just to go back to the BIOS a second, if you check the .txt for:

Version: 21KT32A
Release Date: 2005/03/24

21JT32A

21KT16A/21JT16A
- Updates memory settings <<


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 7
Name: Jennifer SUMN
Date: March 31, 2008 at 15:56:03 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
"8 chips on both sides" hardly designates compatible.

Life's more painless for the brainless.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 8
Name: windowsme
Date: March 31, 2008 at 20:19:51 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
Interesting comments! I will follow up on the BIOS lead, since that's something!

Also, I should point out I did upgrade my ME to XP Prof. Ed. a while ago... that's not important, is it? It shouldn't be.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 9
Name: DAVEINCAPS
Date: March 31, 2008 at 22:02:24 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
You successfully upgraded to XP with only 64 ram?

Have you tried the 256 stick in both slots?

And are you sure it's a good one?


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 10
Name: Viking
Date: April 1, 2008 at 02:31:41 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
Yes, start checking the simple stuff before looking at the BIOS and a flash. You only flash the BIOS if you need to.

...I'd also like to know how you managed to get XP Pro installed with 64 MB RAM. :)


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 11
Name: windowsme
Date: April 1, 2008 at 07:58:58 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
Yes. I cannot stress this enough, I'm 100% positive that the RAM module I bought is the one I need and it's definitely good! I haven't tried 256 in both slots since I wanted to try a combination of both 64+256 (320MB). I dusted the RAM slots clean... made sure I didn't touch the 'volatile' parts of the RAM module... fitted everything securely... there's not a thing I didn't do. The maximum is 512MB, as stated before.

And since the computer is 7 years old, (bought in 2001), a BIOS update would be good, no?

Anywho, as for the XP Pro and 64MB RAM, that one is a mystery. My ME ran into serious problems and it required me to constantly reformat the damn thing. I did try installing XP Pro (and Windows 2000) at one point, but it didn't work. Then one day my ME ran into problems AGAIN, so I popped in the XP Pro disc to see the outcome and it just went away and installed. I'm not sure what happened, but that's as close as it gets. I know it doesn't really help or answer the question, but there's definitely a way to do it... a possible Google search may bring up similar results :P

Mind you, running XP Pro on 64MB is truly a b---h.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 12
Name: Viking
Date: April 1, 2008 at 08:03:46 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
If it were my machine, a BIOS upgrade would be the first thing I'd do, but then again I'm anal about such things.

And it would also be the first port of call if you've done the basics and are sure you are still on the first BIOS release. I don't see you have much option, just pay close attention to the flash procedure detail.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 13
Name: windowsme
Date: April 1, 2008 at 11:45:38 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
Damnit! I updated the BIOS thanks to Viking's link and yet it still doesn't work. Here's the beeping sequence:

1-3-1 = Memory refresh failure.

*sigh*... I'm at a loss as to what to do now


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 14
Name: Viking
Date: April 1, 2008 at 11:52:21 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
Then I would run memtest on the stick to see if it's good or not.

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 15
Name: windowsme
Date: April 1, 2008 at 12:01:38 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
Also, I'd like to point out... the RAM I bought is double-sided. The RAM in the computer is single-sided... does that matter at all?

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 16
Name: jam
Date: April 1, 2008 at 12:12:57 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
"Also, I'd like to point out... the RAM I bought is double-sided. The RAM in the computer is single-sided... does that matter at all?"

I thought you were 100% positive? It could be a density issue with the new RAM or it could be that you've exceeded the allowable number of banks.

According to Crucial, your system has 2 slots & can accept a max of 256MB per slot, but it also states "2 banks of 1". Banks doesn't necessarily refer to single or double sided, but my guess is you're exceeding the limit with your 2 sticks. Have you tried the 256MB stick by itself?

http://www.crucial.com/store/listpa...


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 17
Name: DAVEINCAPS
Date: April 1, 2008 at 12:28:53 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
You need to try the 256 stick in the other slot to verify the problem is not with the slot itself.

I think not all sticks with chips on both sides are 'double sided'. (Double-sided in this case having a specific definition beyond just physically describing the stick.) I believe the double-sided stick you need is one in which the bios sees it as 2-128 sticks instead of 1-256. I think that's what Jam's crucial link refers to.

I don't think the density of the chips is the problem since the stick is already loaded up with 16 chips. It's probably either a bad slot or the 'double-sided' issue.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 18
Name: windowsme
Date: April 6, 2008 at 06:45:36 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
To everyone who replied:

Thanks a lot for the help guys + gals! I went back to the store and traded in the 256 PC133 for a 128 PC100... now I don't know what exactly happened or whether or not Crucial.com could've been inaccurate, but the 128 RAM module works fine! The XP's speed is running better than ever. Probably gonna head back to the store to buy another one, and have the baby running at 256 and finally upgrade to SP2.

Once again - thanks for the help!


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 19
Name: DAVEINCAPS
Date: April 6, 2008 at 13:06:03 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
Your PC specs say it originally came with PC133 ram but it looked like the FSB was 100 mhz so PC100 should be OK. Generally ram will run slower than it's rated speed so normally PC133 would be OK. But I have noticed some PC133 sticks with a label saying they can only be run at 133 mhz. I don't know if they just haven't been tested as slower speeds or if they actually won't work at all. Anyway, that's another possiblity. But probably best to stick with the 128's for now.

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 20
Name: jam
Date: April 11, 2008 at 07:15:34 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
The problem is/was that you bought incompatible RAM. If you're running a 400MHz FSB P4 (or Celeron), you *should* be running PC133, but it's gotta be the right stuff. PC100 will work, but performance will suffer slightly. Too late now.

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 21
Name: DAVEINCAPS
Date: April 11, 2008 at 12:13:06 Pacific
Subject: Ram Difficulties
Reply: (edit)
I don't know if the ram on that can be clocked separately but it's just a celeron in the 1 ghz range on a socket 370 and the intel 810 chipset (which I think only runs at 100 mhz anyway).

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal



Use following form to reply to current message:

   Name: From My Computing.Net Settings
 E-Mail: From My Computing.Net Settings

Subject: Ram Difficulties

Comments:

 
  Homepage URL (*): 
Homepage Title (*): 
         Image URL: 
 


Data Recovery Software



Version Tracker Pro
Keep your software current and secure, effortlessly

Click Here for a Free Scan

Driver Agent
Automatically find the latest drivers for your computer.
Click Here for a Free Scan



The information on Computing.Net is the opinions of its users. Such opinions may not be accurate and they are to be used at your own risk. Computing.Net cannot verify the validity of the statements made on this site. Computing.Net and Computing.Net, LLC hereby disclaim all responsibility and liability for the content of Computing.Net and its accuracy.
PLEASE READ THE FULL DISCLAIMER AND LEGAL TERMS BY CLICKING HERE

All content ©1996-2007 Computing.Net, LLC