Upgrading memory

[GET OFF AXLS BACK]

So ive been given this guys comp to upgrade, never done it before.

Currently he has pc2100 128mb of DDR at 266mh

Can i upgrade with pc2700 or pc3200?

Ive never done it before hence the reason im asking, i ran a scan from www.crucial.com and it recommended pc2700 or pc3200 but i don't want to get it with the voice of experience

[Max™]

Yes, you can use PC2700/DDR333 and PC3200/DDR400 in the system. Occasionally there are compatibility issues with combinations of motherboards and memory, but its highly unlikely - just warning you.

If you tell me what processor and motherboard is in the PC exactly (Google CPU-Z, run it and post the screenshot here). Then I can tell you which memory to use. Also if your motherboard supports dual channel, you'll want that running as well, meaning 2 identical sticks such as 2x512MB.

Also some older motherboards will not accept 1GB memory sticks, so you'll have to get 2x512MB anyway, assuming you want 1GB.

A fatal error is also combining single sided memory (chips on one side of the PCB) with double sided (chips on both sides of the PCB). Regular crashing is common when both are mixed.

[GET OFF AXLS BACK]

Thanx max, ill download CPU-Z then post later on.

[GET OFF AXLS BACK]

Anything else needed Max?

[Max™]

Thats about it.

You'll be able to use higher speeds of memory, but they will just run at DDR266, which is fine because DDR400 is cheaper than DDR266 and It'll run at lower latencies. The board can take 1GB sticks (According to support pages). Dual channel is not supported so you won't have to worry about installing in pairs.

Basically, just go ahead with what you had planned - a stick of 512MB would probably be your best bet. If the sticks are the same type (single/double sided) then you'll be able to use both.

Quick tip: Get rid of Norton if its unneeded. Doing so will probably give you more speed boost than going from 128MB > 256MB.

[GET OFF AXLS BACK]

Thats about it.

You'll be able to use higher speeds of memory, but they will just run at DDR266, which is fine because DDR400 is cheaper than DDR266 and It'll run at lower latencies. The board can take 1GB sticks (According to support pages). Dual channel is not supported so you won't have to worry about installing in pairs.

Basically, just go ahead with what you had planned - a stick of 512MB would probably be your best bet. If the sticks are the same type (single/double sided) then you'll be able to use both.

Quick tip: Get rid of Norton if its unneeded. Doing so will probably give you more speed boost than going from 128MB > 256MB.

Thanx max, i planned on removing Norton and many other things for her, its riddled with excess software, going to put avg in for her then do memory upgrade.Thanx again

[Max™]

Thats about it.

You'll be able to use higher speeds of memory, but they will just run at DDR266, which is fine because DDR400 is cheaper than DDR266 and It'll run at lower latencies. The board can take 1GB sticks (According to support pages). Dual channel is not supported so you won't have to worry about installing in pairs.

Basically, just go ahead with what you had planned - a stick of 512MB would probably be your best bet. If the sticks are the same type (single/double sided) then you'll be able to use both.

Quick tip: Get rid of Norton if its unneeded. Doing so will probably give you more speed boost than going from 128MB > 256MB.

Thanx max, i planned on removing Norton and many other things for her, its riddled with excess software, going to put avg in for her then do memory upgrade.Thanx again

No problem, just remove norton using this:

http://service1.symantec.com/Support/tsgen...005033108162039

Rather than the usual uinstaller. Its more thorough.

Edited May 17, 2008 by Max™

[MAFIA]

that pc is rubbish

He can buy new sistem twice better for 200$

[Rick]

that pc is rubbish

He can buy new sistem twice better for 200$

Another wonderful input

R.

[MAFIA]

Well i know some people can't afford it

But memory he need wont make that pc any good and still he will pay 20-30$ for memory and still have very low quality pc

Better to loan,sell something or wait to get cash and buy new motherboard with ddr2 and new athlon (intel are more expencive so no) cpu both under 200$ + he can get integrated graphic with 10x better quality on 70$ motherboard then he have now,so he dont need to buy graphic,20$ for 1gb ddr2 and 50$ for athlon dual core 4000+ ,thats only 140$ ...

with other 60$ he can get new sata 250gb seagate barracuda

and there you go,new pc

he have monitor and optic devices,he dont need anything else

just 30min to get it together and plug n play baby

[KBear]

It's probably a bit late now but www.crucial.com (they are a memory maker) has a tool that quickly checks what PC you have, what memory is installed, and then presents what your exact upgrade options are. That's how I upgraded my memory.

And btw, I'd wager Norton is much better than AVG. FWIW, the 2008 version has been perfect for me - much less a memory hog than before and everything works perfectly. Very slick!

[kevin]

i ran a scan from www.crucial.com

It's probably a bit late now but www.crucial.com (they are a memory maker) has a tool that quickly checks what PC you have, what memory is installed, and then presents what your exact upgrade options are.

[highvoltage]

And btw, I'd wager Norton is much better than AVG.

Norton is like cancer for computers...

[KBear]

Missed the line about crucial.com.

And btw, I'd wager Norton is much better than AVG.

Norton is like cancer for computers...

I've been running Norton for about ten years now (many different versions) on four separate computers. I have had minimal problems and the program has always done it's job. Read the very detailed review at pcmag.com and Norton is head and shoulders above the competition. So when I read about people having issues I can only assume they are doing something wrong, like maybe trying to install the program when they have other programs running, or they simply don't have the settings right. That's not Norton's fault.

Free programs like AVG are usually lacking somewhere, it's fine for some things, but IMO not for security. Norton tests better, as do other similar programs. Free antispyware like Ad-Aware and Spybot suck too.

Also, my PC is nothing special (it's about three years old, 2800 mHz P4, 1GB RAM just recently upgraded to 2GB). Norton runs fine for me and I've also got Spy Sweeper on at the same time. If my PC can handle it then there is no reason why others with newer rigs should be complaining about their computers grinding to a halt. The only time my PC speed really is affected is during a scan, so I run scans when I'm not using the PC. Maybe if you really need all the power you can get out of your computer (like if you play videogames) then programs like Norton will slow you down, but I think expecting software like a security suite to have no processing demands is probably wishful thinking. I'll admit that some of my programs take longer to load than I'd like, and it's probably attributable to Norton, but I'll take it's benefits over that little criticism any day of the week. Doubling my RAM has helped.

I'm not saying you are wrong - obviously some people must have had issues with Norton. But my experience seems to be polar opposite. I'm assuming the silent majority have had experience like mine, considering Norton has been the #1 product in that space for as long as I can remember. If it was so awful then surely people would stop buying it.

Edited May 23, 2008 by KBear

[Max™]

Missed the line about crucial.com.

And btw, I'd wager Norton is much better than AVG.

Norton is like cancer for computers...

I'm not saying you are wrong - obviously some people must have had issues with Norton. But my experience seems to be polar opposite. I'm assuming the silent majority have had experience like mine, considering Norton has been the #1 product in that space for as long as I can remember. If it was so awful then surely people would stop buying it.

Norton and McAfee are rammed down peoples throats at places like PCWorld. Average joe doesn't know any different so they spend their money on it.

NOD32 rapes Norton anyday. Although I have to admit the latest versions have been better in terms of performance but its still got far to go. Whichever floats your boat I guess.

[KBear]

Don't know much about NOD32. I've heard it's really good though and next time I upgrade I'll give it some consideration.

My impression of PCWorld and PCMag is that they provide pretty much equal coverage to many brands. Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky, Bit Defender, Panda, and Zone Alarm all get reviews that are about the same size. McAfee in actuality doesn't really rate that great. If anything, PCMag rated Panda #2 behind Norton this year.

In terms of Norton's and McAfee's market share, I'll grant you that they are probably the most pre-installed brands and the best marketed.

Maybe I'm missing something about Norton. I've never had another brand installed so I don't have anything to compare it to. It's just surprising to read all the negativity about it because for me it has always worked fine.

[highvoltage]

Missed the line about crucial.com.

And btw, I'd wager Norton is much better than AVG.

Norton is like cancer for computers...

I've been running Norton for about ten years now (many different versions) on four separate computers. I have had minimal problems and the program has always done it's job. Read the very detailed review at pcmag.com and Norton is head and shoulders above the competition. So when I read about people having issues I can only assume they are doing something wrong, like maybe trying to install the program when they have other programs running, or they simply don't have the settings right. That's not Norton's fault.

Free programs like AVG are usually lacking somewhere, it's fine for some things, but IMO not for security. Norton tests better, as do other similar programs. Free antispyware like Ad-Aware and Spybot suck too.

Also, my PC is nothing special (it's about three years old, 2800 mHz P4, 1GB RAM just recently upgraded to 2GB). Norton runs fine for me and I've also got Spy Sweeper on at the same time. If my PC can handle it then there is no reason why others with newer rigs should be complaining about their computers grinding to a halt. The only time my PC speed really is affected is during a scan, so I run scans when I'm not using the PC. Maybe if you really need all the power you can get out of your computer (like if you play videogames) then programs like Norton will slow you down, but I think expecting software like a security suite to have no processing demands is probably wishful thinking. I'll admit that some of my programs take longer to load than I'd like, and it's probably attributable to Norton, but I'll take it's benefits over that little criticism any day of the week. Doubling my RAM has helped.

I'm not saying you are wrong - obviously some people must have had issues with Norton. But my experience seems to be polar opposite. I'm assuming the silent majority have had experience like mine, considering Norton has been the #1 product in that space for as long as I can remember. If it was so awful then surely people would stop buying it.

I used Norton for many years and was reluctant to switch away from it - but I found that when I did, my PC's performance felt like it doubled. It's such a resource-intensive and over the top piece of software, and it gets poor reviews from users and reviewers alike - http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-security-...7-32588377.html

NOD32 and Kaspersky are my picks for Antivirus programs. Very small, lean, and they offer a level of protection that is high, but remains unintrusive. I've worked with a bunch of people in the IT industry, and the unanimous consensus has been that Norton is horrible. It may have been #1 a long time ago, but that's certainly not the case anymore.

[KBear]

Kaspersky was on my list of products to consider until I saw the following thread:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-...st-me-at-ISwift

After that I didn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Even if the allegations ended up untrue I didn't want to find out for myself. There are many other products available so to me it was simply not worth the risk - just get something else instead.

Edited May 24, 2008 by KBear

[MAFIA]

thats why all experts use nod32

[The Sandman]

NOD32 and Kaspersky are my picks for Antivirus programs. Very small, lean, and they offer a level of protection that is high, but remains unintrusive. I've worked with a bunch of people in the IT industry, and the unanimous consensus has been that Norton is horrible. It may have been #1 a long time ago, but that's certainly not the case anymore.

BINGO.

Or, the paid version of AVG.

[eRomano]

UPDRADING MEMORY:

The "Crucial System Scanner tool" from www.crucial.com is really great for determining the precise type of memory needed when upgrading memory.

ANTIVIRUS:

NOD32 is also my pick for antivirus software. It's quite low on ressources. I've tried many Antivirus with Windows Vista, NOD32 works best for me with Vista.