Win XP Pro stealing memory!

I have just installed XP Pro onto a Presario 1690 laptop with a brand new IBM/Hitachi 20 GB GNX drive. All went smoothly, and it only took 45 mins from start to finish.

I previously had Win 98 on the old 6.4 Gig drive, with 320 MB RAM (running fine for 3 years) with a K6-3+ 550.

Now, Win XP only "sees" 64MB of RAM, and it runs quite slow...why is this?
What can I do to get back the other 256MB SODIMM memory that I added 3 years ago?

This machine should fly with that combination of stuff in it.

Rudders

XP is much less forgiving about hardware than 9x. Suggest you go to www.simmtester.com and download docmem.. it creates a boot diskette with which you can test the ram.

Hi Noo-Noo, thanx for the link.

It reports that the memory is sound and in fully working order.

It is a Crucial PC133 CL2 unit, so I had no worries as to it's quality of build and performance, but worth the check up!

Could it be a WinXP Kernel prob, or anything to do with my rare Processor?

If I have no joy, it's back to either Win98 or Linux!
The Win XP CD can go back to MS!

Rudders

Was it a clean install of an upgrade?

If it was an upgrade, maybe a clean install can do the trick.

If not. hmmm...is XP all patched up?

Would you check that model number again?

Quote:

---

Compaq Presario 1690

Product Specifications

400 MHz AMD-K6®-2 Processor with 3DNow!™ Technology
14.1'' TFT Active Matrix XGA Display
64 MB SyncDRAM (upgradable to 192MB)
Integrated 6.4 GB UltraDMA hard drive
Integrated 4X DVD-ROM Drive
100 MHz System Bus
Fast 512 KB Pipeline Burst Cache
Notebook weight = 7.5 pounds

---

I have seen this so many times. If it works, don't fix it. There is only one reason to upgrade from Win98 or any breed of windows. Oh wait, no I was wrong, I can't think of a single reason why the AVERAGE user would want or need to upgrade from 98 to something higher in version.

XP does nothing that 98 can't do for the average user. In fact, even 98 does nothing for the user that 95 can't do with the exception of usb support. And even 95sr2 can do that.

Why should we indulge MS when we already have what we need?

Stop encouraging the softcock giants.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Marko of Oz
I have seen this so many times. If it works, don't fix it. There is only one reason to upgrade from Win98 or any breed of windows. Oh wait, no I was wrong, I can't think of a single reason why the AVERAGE user would want or need to upgrade from 98 to something higher in version.

XP does nothing that 98 can't do for the average user. In fact, even 98 does nothing for the user that 95 can't do with the exception of usb support. And even 95sr2 can do that.

Why should we indulge MS when we already have what we need?

Stop encouraging the softcock giants.

---

Same reason people "upgrade" anything from cars to houses.

Usually because we want to. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NooNoo
Would you check that model number again?

---

Yes I know Noo-Noo, but when the Presario came out, there were no such things as 256MB SODIMMS. I did a SiSoft Sandra analysis and it recognised that the sockets could take 256MB SODIMMS and that a total of 512MB could be installed.
It has an ALi V chipset, and the BIOS definitely counts all the RAM with no probs. Win98, Linux (A small floppy distro), BeOS, and NT all recognise the full 320 MB.

I have since heard of a friend's brother who has the same problem with a P3-1 GHz laptop only 1 year old ! He extended his RAM from 128 to 384 using a 256MB PC133 SODIMM, and XP only sees 128 MB, but the BIOS counts all 384MB.

I think that I will Image the old 6.4 Gig drive with Win 98, and simply copy it to the new drive after formatting it clean....would you concur?

I wonder if there is some sort of registry entry that is forcing XP to ignore the memory for some reason?

Just a thought.

Rudders

Not that I can see... if you drop the 64mb does it see the 256?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Low_Level_Owl
Same reason people "upgrade" anything from cars to houses.

Usually because we want to. :)

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NooNoo
Not that I can see... if you drop the 64mb does it see the 256?

---

That will take a while to try, the original 64MB is socketed directly onto the mainboard, and to get to it, I have to remove the whole mobo and attachments. Maybe have a go at it one day soon...time allowing!

Will keep you posted.

Rudders

Ouch.... :sad:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Marko of Oz

XP does nothing that 98 can't do for the average user. In fact, even 98 does nothing for the user that 95 can't do with the exception of usb support. And even 95sr2 can do that.

---

For the average user simply stability. For the corporate network there are several such as Active directory integration, remote assistance, terminal services, better wsh scripting, hyperthreading support, Oh and Group Policy!

The XP Orgizational Units I have i spend very little time administering wheras the 95 and 98 machines are a constant headache.

Is it me or was the original thread about a memory error not about what 1 OS can do better then the other,or why or why not to upgrade?

Lets take a logic aproach to the problem: XP doest recognise but the 98 do? Well, i think the proble could only bee one with an Ali chipset: the motherboard bios.
Have you tried an bios flash with the latest version?
Have you tried the ram at a diferent clock cycle or delay times?
Have you tried running the mobo with a diferent graphics adaptor?

Try it, couse the problem its there: XP dont like hardware on the 'red line', and thats wy he is the king of stable and regular MS Systems. That 'caracter' make us wont to get it!

In the end... Ali Chipset.... get another mobo!

Greetings from the country of Sun
There is a midle and soft winf,
with an easy 29º in the background
I love to take walks this days!

http://www.painformatica.pt.to/