RAM upgrade -> Memory warning

G

Grabbit

Hi.

A few weeks ago, I upgraded my RAM from 1x128 to 3x256 MB.
Indeed it does make things run smoother, but I already twice got a problem with Norton AniVirus.

With only a few browser windows open and a Java application, (and on a freshly reinstalled W98SE) I hear the display click, get a black screen, then blue, not the Windows BSOD but this time it's from NAV:
"Warning. System Memory is running very low. Norton Anti Virus may not be able to function properly. Click any key to continue." And then I could return to Windows, but the Java chart wouldn't load. (Prophet Charts it was)

How can this happen? I never had this with my 128 MB, and now with 6 times that much, it's running low on memory???

The memory I bought is A-brand (Infineon).

I know there are RAM managing programs, but I think it just shouldn't happen. I wasn't using a RAM manager as I hadn't reinstallled it yet.

After inserting the RAM banks I ran the memory diagnostics test that came with my computer: everything was OK

Anybody any idea what may be the problem?
 
maybe your BIOS needs an update.
This is a lot of memory and sometimes the system was not made to handle it. It could be win98 not liking it either.

Anyway I would rather use NT (4, 2000) with this kind of configuration.
These are just ideas, I did not face this kind of problem (well, once with the bios and too much memory, that's why I mention it, even though it was a long time ago).

tntneo
 
Grab,
Just a guess here...you may have exceeded your computers total ram capability...suggest you take your ram boards back out and reboot your computer as it was originally....see if everything is ok...if it is...then add only one board at a time...reboot and check to see if ok...if so add another...and so on until you reach a point where it will not work...sometimes when you add to much ram at one time the system has a hard time recognizeing it...do it a liitle at a time...if you go back to your original configuration and it still does not work right, then its not the ram boards...hope this helps:)
 
You need to go to Microsoft support and read up on this. Win98 has problems when you exceed 512 mb ram. Sorry I dont have the link handy.
 
Often Win98 will complain about being out of memory, while it's really out of "resources". Windows 98 unfortunately uses fixed-size resource tables independent of system memory, so it's possible to run out of resource handles even if you have lots of free memory.

The only solution is to move to win2000/XP. This is a design limitation in the older Windows software, nothing you can do to fix it.
 
Thanks guys. It's great to have so much expertise on this board.

Indeed I was considering W2K, so here's another reason to do it.
Btw my comp should be able to handle this amount of RAM, though it's the absolute max. It's way more than I need of course but well, it's so cheap these days...

I'll check out all of your suggestions.

Thanks.
 
Hey guys,

That's remarkable, I just had the same problem again with exactly that same web page (http://www.prophetfinance.com/charts/pc.asp). But my RAM manager said I had still 273 MB free RAM (I had just checked).
Strange...
The problem may be that I already had a Java chart open from them.

Just wanted to keep you informed, maybe it rings a bell to someone.
 
Some motherboards have a problem with 384MB ram. Have a Gatway p300 cpu with a Intel mb that will cause Win 98 to get buggy if 384 mb ram is installed, but works good with 256. Crucial confirmed this bug in some mb, it was a Microsoft98/MB issue.
Flier
 
After a week it happened again, so according to the Microsoft article, this should fix it:

Start>Run>type "msconfig">OK>General>Advanced>check "limit memory to ..... MB" and fill in 512 or less.>OK>OK.

Here's the link mentioned in the first article:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q181/9/66.ASP

Hexidecimal should I believe read hexadecimal, which to my knowledge means that the amount filled in should be dividable by 16.

Hope it helps, but it actually means that one memory bank remains unused by Windows, so from an energy point of view (they take up 15W or so I've been told), I might do better by removing it.

All of you, thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top