| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
| World Community Grid Forums
|
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 16
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Viktors
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: Sep 20, 2004 Post Count: 653 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I'm not certain about what technique the software vendor uses for testing the amount of memory you have. However, did you run the memory test when you set your system to the settings which gave the differring results: "32MB video - 960 MB on agent (wrong)"? Also, does you new replacement stick use exactly the same memory chips? Additionally, when you add a second stick, it might actually change the timing for all of your memory depending on how the memory controller is implemented on your motherboard. So given all of the variables here, it is really hard to tell what is going on with your system.
You might try booting Knoppix or some other OS like Windows/XP and see what those systems report? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I'm not certain about what technique the software vendor uses for testing the amount of memory you have. However, did you run the memory test when you set your system to the settings which gave the differring results: "32MB video - 960 MB on agent (wrong)"? Also, does you new replacement stick use exactly the same memory chips? Additionally, when you add a second stick, it might actually change the timing for all of your memory depending on how the memory controller is implemented on your motherboard. So given all of the variables here, it is really hard to tell what is going on with your system. You might try booting Knoppix or some other OS like Windows/XP and see what those systems report? The memory sticks are from different manufacturers but they are both DDR 400 while the board is running at DDR 333 rates so timing should not effect the memory with no overclock. In addition, I ran Memtest86 with the config that is not reported correctly. It reports the correct amount of memory and no memory errors over a 12 hour test period. This program runs from DOS boot so it is independant of Windows operating system. Finally, I loaded a shareware utility - Emsa flex info - in Windows and it reports 992 MB, the same as the operating system. Therefore, my conclusion is that there IS a bug in the agent and it is reporting the wrong amount of memory since both the OS and independant programs report the amount of memory that I expect to see and the agent does not. |
||
|
|
Viktors
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: Sep 20, 2004 Post Count: 653 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I don't know what else to suggest. I will add this to the list of future things to investigate. However, it may be quite some time before we get a fix for this from the software vendor.
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Thanks for the feedback. 32 MB isn't a huge hit but I dislike problems that might be a symptom of some other issue.
How often is the agent updated? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hello DAJ,
Searching through Win 98 / ME info, I found: The MaxPhysPage setting controls the amount of memory that Windows 9x can actually ‘see’. Each page is 4,096 bytes and the MaxPhysPage value is in hexadecimal so 39,999 is equivalent to 235,929 pages in decimal, which is a shade over 921MB. Because this is less than 1GB, Windows 98 will certainly be satisfied, but if you are, you’re a bigger fool than I originally thought, because you are simply disabling the extra RAM, and not fixing the incompatibility. It may be that your video system is using memory that Windows ME cannot use. mycrofth |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I will try XP this weekend and see if I still see the problem. My bet is that I will.
|
||
|
|
|