Don't know what you are getting at or what your problem is.
I just said 256 is inadequate - 512 is bare minimum, and 1024 wakes it
up. Where's your beef??? I also said using too little ram and
multitasking is hard on the hard drive due to page filing (virtual
ram).. That is true. What's your beef?
I started working for a computer manufacturer locally 25 years ago,
when the XT was hot stuff - the PC with 2 single side 5 1/4" floppies
was standard - with 16K of ram being a "full load"
We were the largest distributor of hard drives in Canada at the time,
and went on to be, fo a short time, the largest distributor of CD Rom
equipment in Canada - and I put CD Roms on networks across Canada back
before CD Rom was supported by the operating systems or networks
(novell, Banyan Vines, SCO, etc)
After 5 years in that position I went off on my own - been 20 years
now servicing small/medium business computers and networks.
Most (small/medium) businesses today could get along just fine with XP
Pro and 1 or 2 gb of Ram with 340gb hard drives, with a Windows 2003
server with a terrabyte or two.
My major clients are being forced into Windows 7 as their old systems
die off - not because they need the capability (other than not being
able to run more than IE8 - and the application not being Firfox or
You can use it as a ram drive on some computers - but not as system
ram. Using the ram drive for VRam has advantages. It is no longer a
documented/supported feature in XP, but it can be done - see:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 11:35:19 PM UTC-4, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I agree with Clare and Rbowman. A 32 bit OS can only use 4GB. This
thread has wandered all over and there was at least one poster advocating
that 512MB was enough. The OP didn't state how much memory he had. So
I was thinking in the context if he only has say 1GB, then adding more
memory and it will be used. But if it's already at 4GB, I agree that
adding more isn't going to help. A 12 year old MB may not have the
ability to have more than 4GB anyway.
In 40 years of computer engineering, I've not experienced this. I've
seen caps blow up (and blow right out the side of the mainframe). I've
seen bad caps let the magic smoke out. I've seen dead caps prevent a
system from booting.
I've never seen, nor heard of a cap causing a PC to slow down. Not
that I'm discounting your experience, I'm just not sure that you've
correctly attributed the problem to the capacitors.
You've been told incorrectly. Once you've exceeded the tested
margins for the voltage or frequency, system operation is
unpredictable. That said, most modern processors use DVFS (Dynamic
Voltage and Frequency scaling) to dyamically reduce power
consumption by varying both within margins.
The former, true, the latter, not so much (it's other components
that can't stand the heat).
Ah those days when 8 K of core (RAM for you kids) would run a big
company and the 7 bit CPU cycle was 11.5 uS (IBM 1401)
256 characters was plenty for a little program. (no "bytes" yet)
I do sort of miss it.
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 4:41:56 PM UTC-5, Jerry wrote:
Max for your system RAM is probably 2GB total(considering availability). At $20 each ($40+shp) for tested/used sticks.
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 10:18:14 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
I know this is straying from the topic, but your core comments brought
back some memories. I have a core board here somewhere that I bring
out every now and then to show people. I think it holds a whopping
4096 bits. (64 x 64 It looks like a window screen with small magnetic
donuts at each intersection - you can determine the size by counting
the bits). And, your 11.5 us cycle time equates to a 85 kHz processor
- not megahertz - not gigahertz - but kilohertz. Those were fun
times. You had to write what any modern programmer would call
terrible unsupportable code to get it to fit in the available memory
and run fast enough. Things like changing the program on the fly so
the next time an instruction executed, it would do something else.
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 10:41:15 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org (Dan.Espen)
I was really just talking about the program code. If you fire off a
"2" command, whatever is in 201-332 is going to end up on the paper.
so you would need more than 256 total memory unless you can get it in
44 characters. You can use those dedicated spots as your operand areas
tho. Read a card, do some math on what is in the card read area and
output it to the print area. Easy in 44 bytes ;-)
Now if we could just get rid of that pesky 101-180 punch area.
I had a 1kb plane out of an M2I array (360m25&30 along with the first
There were 17 planes making 2 bytes and a parity bit. (16kb)
I ended up giving it to a guy making a small computer museum over on
Do you remember those computer programs that would play a song on an
AM radio you put on top of the CPU frame.
They did not really have FCC certification in those days and it would
punch through the detector on an AM radio.
I recall putting code there more than once.
I remember the unfriendly look on the IBM salesman's face when I
pointed out that our 8K 1440 would have to be replaced with a S/360
with at least 64K. 32K wasn't going to cut it.
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 11:26:42 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
I never tried that, but I do remember playing the marine hymm on an
attached 1403 printer. Back to terrible programming techniques used
to save memory, we used ascii but needed to interface with EBCDIC IBM
mainframes. So, we had to use up a valuable 256 bytes for a
translation table. Of course, not all those characters were actually
used, so we put small subroutines in the unused parts of the table.
For years afterwards, we had to maintain that table with its goofy
values for backward compatibility.
If you're really going to try to keep the old computer
you'd be better off if you do a couple of things. first,
you can get the manuals for it here:
Most older computers have a hidden partition from
which the original system can be re-installed. According
to your manual, your model doesn't have that, but came
with an XP CD instead.
If you still have the CD and still have your software CDs
you should copy all of the patches, SP3, etc. to CDs or
memory sticks, then re-install XP with the Dell CD. That
will give you a fresh setup that should run as well as the
day you got it.
After that, re-install your patches and software.
But a much better approach would be to first try to find
someone who can help you install a new hard disk, *then*
run the Dell XP CD on that. (It's not hard to install, but
there are some details to know about, and it might take
some work to find the right kind of disk. (Known as EIDE
A fresh install will make everything run better. You
don't need more memory or anything else, unless you're
doing something like photo editing on very big digital
photos. If you want more RAM you can always add
it later, but the best thing is to re-install XP.
You're running on borrowed time with a 12-year-old
hard disk. It could go at any time. You *might* get
another 3-4 years out of the computer, with good
functionality, if you re-install *and* put in a new
hard disk. Otherwise you're probably better off not
wasting any more time or money on it.
If you hurry, you can reload XP, turn on updates and MS will send you
everything to get it up to current patch level.
I just did one.
Then take Disk Wizard or some other similar program to image that
disk. You will have a great backup for when you get that inevitable
disk crash or just a way to set the way back machine to the day you
I have several images of this machine in several steps from day one
until about a week ago.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.