Memory not Detected? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Memory not Detected?

  1. #11
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    When playing with Old MoBo.. a **** load of mixed ram modules helps in fault finding..( but be careful if mixxing in a machine)
    Hi Undies, I have actually used the technique to violate a large corporate's BIOS/CMOS custom security

    It would not let me replace a hardware device so I gave it a bit of a "shock" and it re-assessed itself, adding the new device...........yes...........I got it to accept a thumb drive as well

    Errrr................nothing illegal, my mate's wife had got the machine from work when they were doing a hardware just had custom BIOS that prevented new devices being added...........all I had to do was provoke it into looking at what was actually attached?


  2. #12
    Thanks guys. This has proven to be one of the more educational threads for me as of late.

    I was expecting Redhat to at least run somewhat ok on 128mb because my impression thus had been that Linux was always an overall faster running OS, partly due to the fact that Linux folks are so sick of XP using up so much memory for nother reason than looking flashy. So that's why I was a little surprised when this box was still creeping. Anyway, I guess I should've expected as much since Redhat is one of the more "windowsish" distros (from what I understand anyway).

    I eventually will be heeding gore's suggesting and rigging Slackware on one of these boxes...

    So I hadn't thought of the differences between memory sticks, and I should have. For one thing, I have no way of telling bus speeds or even memory size on these older sticks because they're not marked, so I'm just kinda having to throw them in there and see what happens. So there is a way to mix unlike memory and get away with it eh?

    Anyway, the input's been very helpful. I think I'm going to pull another 128mb out of a Win98 machine I have running over here and move it over to this Redhat one. That should help speed things up to an at least useable speed!

  3. #13
    It's running great now! I put in that other 128mb stick so I now have 256mb, and it's running nice and smooth. VICTORY!!!!

    Thanks guys!

  4. #14
    The Doctor Und3ertak3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Rule: Rules are made to be broken
    The rules I give are general rules.. more as a fault finding guideline

    Glad to hear things are working better

    "Consumer technology now exceeds the average persons ability to comprehend how to use it..give up hope of them being able to understand how it works." - Me

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Yeh, motherboards have pretty strict rules that apply to the types of RAM that they can handle. Like for example, alot of mobo's that I'm seeing nowadays can take 2100, 2700, and 3200 Ram sticks, and have a max of 3 or 4 gigs, But have a maximum of 1 2700 or 3200 ram stick up to a gig. Weird stuff like that, and when your dealing with an older motherboard, your really kind of shooting in the dark...
    I am the uber duck!!1
    Proxy Tools

  6. #16
    So is there anyway to figure out what such stats are on a memory stick if it isn't marked with a label giving the info?

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    This site breaks it down for you
    \"You got a mouth like an outboard motor..all the time putt putt putt\" - Foghorn Leghorn

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts