amilo-forum.com

Everything you need to know about Amilo and Lifebook laptops by Fujitsu

Why doesn't my new memory work? Topic is solved

Everything around CPU, RAM or cooling of notebook components.

Postby hikaru » Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:21 pm

Can you please post a screenshot of your device manager and one of the panel that you called "hardwaredetails"?

Are you working with admin-privileges or under a limited account?
User avatar
hikaru
Moderator
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:23 am
Notebook:
  • Amilo Si 1520
  • Desktop
  • Asus EEE 901

Postby suprnova » Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:37 pm

Double post.
My Bad.
Last edited by suprnova on Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
suprnova
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:00 am

Postby suprnova » Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:38 pm

Couldn't Find the word for device manager, so that's why I wrote hardwaredetails.

The device manager is in swedish, but the icons for each device are the same for all languages, so I guess it would work anyway.

Hope you understand.

And I have Admin-rights
Attachments
Device Manager.JPG
suprnova
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:00 am

Postby hikaru » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:12 pm

Thanks for the screenshot! Yes I understand it, seems like written swedish and german are quite similar. ;-)
Everything looks fine.

Have you tested, what happens if you put your old 512MB back in again?
And what happens if you only insert one of the new memory-chips or maybe a mix of the old and new one?

Thre are several scenarios in my mind:
1. The new RAM isn't compatible to your notebook or to each other, though it should be. I know it sounds stupid, but sometimes even two identical chips won't work together. Maybe another combination works better. And with your old RAM installed everything should work like it did before. If this is the case, using other modules can solve this problem.

2. The new RAM is defective, either from the beginning or during installation due to electrostatic discharge. But the errors are not detected properly. Then it should work with your old RAM.

3. Your mainboard is damaged. Either it was before the upgrade (your boot- and chipset-problems may point to this) or got damaged during install (ESD again). If this is the case, every combination of RAM-modules will show the same effect.

To be honest, I'm at my wits' end. Try other combinations of RAM, if one of them works, option 1 or 2 is valid and other modules should solve your problems. Kingston and MDT are known to be reliable RAM-manufacturers.
User avatar
hikaru
Moderator
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:23 am
Notebook:
  • Amilo Si 1520
  • Desktop
  • Asus EEE 901

Postby suprnova » Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:02 am

Something that made me think yesterday was this little thing.

And I did also reinstall Windows and now the chipset seems to be there, or at least Windows is not saying it's not there.

So have to reinstall every program to see startup times again.

And one thing more, how big is the difference going to be from 512 to 2048?

Anyhow, the problem is attached.

And yeah, why I think it's a problem is because there's 400mhz memories, and there's two of them, so I can't get it together.
Attachments
strange.JPG
strange.JPG (4.72 KiB) Viewed 967 times
suprnova
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:00 am

Postby aspettl » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:09 am

There is no reason to believe that your new RAM does not work. It is normal that the device manager doesn't list the modules.
2 GB are recognized. If there are compatibility problems, your system will behave strange in the sense of weird errors / blue screens. (You can burn a memtest86+ cd and boot using the cd to check for errors, it has to run for some hours.)

I see nothing strange in "strange.JPG".

Please post a screenshot of your task manager, the third tab. There we can see how much of RAM is currently used.
The availability of RAM itself doesn't improve speed at all. It has to be used and then it's significant, because RAM is a lot faster than your harddisk.

The info says it's 2gb installed, but it reeeally goes much slower than with the 512 installed.

Imho this is another problem, independent of your new RAM, caused by the reinstallation of Windows.

Regards
Aaron
User avatar
aspettl
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Germany
Notebook:
  • Lifebook E8020D

Postby suprnova » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:26 am

Here's the task manager.

I'm going to start memtest now, so I'll check back in a few hours.
Attachments
Task Manager.JPG
suprnova
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:00 am

Postby hikaru » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:33 am

I don't know, where this strange RAM-frequency (592MHz is strange) comes from. But your chipset supports up to 667MHz:
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/855pm/index.htm
If it works, I wouldn't be concerned about it.

If you look into yout task-manager (3rd tab like mentioned by aspettl) you will see the usage of your swap file in the lower left diagram. If you see significant changes in this diagram (especially increasing value) then you will benefit from more RAM.
User avatar
hikaru
Moderator
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:23 am
Notebook:
  • Amilo Si 1520
  • Desktop
  • Asus EEE 901

Postby aspettl » Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:20 am

592 MHz is the frequency of the CPU, not RAM 8)

The task manager says all applications and Windows itself use 214 MB in total. So it is not surprising that you can't feel a difference, because considerably less than 512 MB are used...
Even so, if you start and exit a program, the next start should be faster, because Windows has a lot RAM free to use as a file cache. This was the same with 512 MB, but now it should work for a longer period of time, because is has about 1.7G of free RAM instead of only 250M.

The real (and intended) difference is of course, you can use many applications together, even if they each use over 100 MB of RAM - and then it will be much faster than before!

Regards
Aaron
User avatar
aspettl
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Germany
Notebook:
  • Lifebook E8020D

Postby suprnova » Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:51 pm

Memtest said no errors, so that is no problem.

But I mean, The startup should atleast be way faster than the previous, and now it's a lot slower, and now I haven't installed all the programs I did have on startup before.

Or am I way out wrong and just see this on this problem the wrong way?

I spent 200$ on this, so it would be nice with a faster startup, even so, the computer now supports lot of the heavy programs from Adobe, and that's positive.

Anyhow, explain?
suprnova
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:00 am

Postby hikaru » Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:53 pm

aspettl wrote:592 MHz is the frequency of the CPU, not RAM 8)
My fault. :roll:
User avatar
hikaru
Moderator
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:23 am
Notebook:
  • Amilo Si 1520
  • Desktop
  • Asus EEE 901

Postby aspettl » Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:51 pm

Startup time doesn't improve with more RAM. So that's another problem, you can search e.g. Google for tips to improve this.

Regards
Aaron
User avatar
aspettl
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Germany
Notebook:
  • Lifebook E8020D

Postby suprnova » Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:00 pm

Well, then I guess this problem is solved, however I do think it's wierd that the same startup at 512 i faster then 2048, I mean, it's the exact same startup programs.

Anyways, thanks for explaining and all help with my problems.
suprnova
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:00 am

Previous

Return to CPU, RAM, fan