Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Laauuren · 06:45 AM

I am not quite sure where to post this, so I am going to just start here. My little brother just got a new computer, and so I am going to take his old one back up to school with me. I haven't had a PC since right after our Apple IIC in 86, so I don't know anything about PC hardware. I need to buy more RAM for the computer, as it only has 32 megs. I would like to run XP comfortably but am not too concerned with running the computer at anywhere near optimal performace. I pulled the two sticks of RAM out of the PC, but I don't know what kind they are, which would be extremely helpful to me in ordering more. So here are the pictures I just took. I know this might be a dumb question since it's right on the label, but I never claimed to be a computer genius. So, if someone can identify this RAM for me, and let me know maybe where the best place to buy more is, I would really appreciate it. Thanks!

dtriska · Mar 10, 2003, 05:51 AM

Looks to me like the RAM is PC100. This means you can buy either PC100 or PC133 RAM.

What's that Intel picture of? If the pic is right, you can pick up only 256 MB of RAM total for this computer.

Cipher13 · Mar 10, 2003, 05:52 AM

The lower chip is PC100, cas latency 3 (-2-2).

Any PC100, 133, etc, stick will work. Standard pin count, I'd assume.

Ask for PC100/PC133 SDRAM.

OreoCookie · Mar 10, 2003, 05:55 AM

Seems to be a bit old, the PC. I wouldn't recommend running XP on it ...

Spliffdaddy · 06:09 AM

Those are 168pin SDRAM DIMMs rated at PC100 with a CAS latency of 3,2,2

The fact that the PC shipped with 32MB of RAM is almost a guarantee that it won't run WindowsXP effectively, if at all. I'll guess you have a Pentium2 based on the slowish "PC100" rating of the RAM. While Microsoft claims a 233MHz processor will run WindowsXP - it WILL BE painfully slow. I'd stick with Windows98se or WindowsME on any PC with less than a 2nd generation (500MHz+ FCPGA) Pentium3. Even if you're willing to deal with WindowsXP on a slow processor, you might have some trouble finding WindowsXP drivers for the older hardware in your PC. Run the 'compatibility check' before you install XP! It will list any potential problems such as missing device drivers or a motherboard BIOS that needs to be updated. You need at least 128MB of RAM to run XP. With no applications launched XP will consume about 90MB. After the physical RAM is used it will use the hard drive as 'virtual RAM' (aka, paging file)...slowing things down even more. Adding 128MB to the existing 32MB should be plenty for normal use.

PS, you want to buy 168pin PC133 SDRAM single-sided, if possible...since the existing RAM has chips on a single side. You may not be able to find 'PC100', but PC133 is backward compatible.

edit: Just noticed part of the label in the photo..66MHz system bus. That makes it a Celeron or Pentium2 - at best. I wouldn't load XP on that machine.

Laauuren · Mar 10, 2003, 06:49 AM

Below I am posting a picture of the full specs of the computer, according to the sticker on the tower. I have a G4 Powerbook, so speed isn't really a big concern of mine. Really I just want to create a printing station for myself. I was hoping to be able to install XP just because it is so convenient to not have to install any drivers. However, if the computer is too slow then I do have as an option both Windows 98 and ME. The computer shipped with 98.

Face Ache · Mar 10, 2003, 06:50 AM

Did I just catch Spliff serving a purpose around here?!

OreoCookie · Mar 10, 2003, 07:44 AM

I'd recommend Windows 2000. Enough features for everyday use, (relatively) stable and less bloated than XP (although it's quite bloated already). I've got a Windows 2000 box running with 196 Megs of RAM which is sufficient for every day purposes like writing letters 'n stuff.

Windows 2000 is not that much of a RAM guzzler though compared to OS X.

scaught · Mar 10, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Did I just catch Spliff serving a purpose around here?!

TN - the troll you love to hate/hate to love.

Spliffdaddy · Mar 10, 2003, 11:23 AM

holy cow.

That's a 533MHz Celeron.

Just barely adequate to run WindowsXP...but it should do a decent job.

I can't believe it shipped with 32MB though.

Laauuren · Mar 10, 2003, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
ng 32MB should be plenty for normal use.

PS, you want to buy 168pin PC133 SDRAM single-sided, if possible...since the existing RAM has chips on a single side. You may not be able to find 'PC100', but PC133 is backward compatible.

I was following most of the advice pretty well until you mentioned single-sided RAM. What is the difference?
Also I have a 128 stick of RAM that was left over after my parents upgraded an iMac DV. From what it sounds like it will be able to be used in this PC right? Does the RAM have to be installed in pairs?
Thanks

Eug · Mar 10, 2003, 08:12 PM

I'm not sure which chipset you have, but you most likely won't be able to run most 256 MB RAM DIMMs, and it's basically guaranteed that any 512 MB stick you buy won't work AFAIK. At least, this is true with Intel chipsets of that era. Dunno much about the VIA chipsets from then.

You'll likely need low density PC100 or PC133 RAM. Some 16-chip 256 MB sticks will work but they're hard to find. Most 128 MB sticks will work. If you go 128 MB, then just get two or three of them. The lower limit for XP is about 192 MB. 256 MB is quite OK, and 384 MB is actually pretty good for a lower end machine.

If you have a 533 Celeron, XP will run fine. Quite well actually. I can't believe how anybody could get a computer of that generation with 32 MB RAM though. Even back in the 366 Celeron days, most computers came with 64 or more.

t_hah · Mar 10, 2003, 08:53 PM

If you have a 533 Celeron, XP will run fine. Quite well actually. I can't believe how anybody could get a computer of that generation with 32 MB RAM though. Even back in the 366 Celeron days, most computers came with 64 or more. [/B]

You might be right...but I think our poster above has an eMachines computer, which was not known for its super high standards back then. It was known for its unbeatable price.