600E sometimes doesn't recognize all memory installed

[PCWatchman]

I read that 600E 2645-5BU 400mhz PII supports up to 288MB RAM, 32MB built-in and 128MB in each of 2 available slots. So about a year ago I set it up like that and it worked fine up until now. Lately though, it intermittently boots up recognizing only the built-in 32MB and one of the 128MB sticks. I have to unscrew and remove the memory cover on the bottom, remove both memory sticks, and reboot trying combinations of both sticks removed, using just built-in, or 1 stick in either slot which registers fine. It's only with both sticks installed that it intermittently boots not recognizing one of them. It doesn't matter which stick in where, so it's not the memory itself. Sockets are clean. Could there be a BIOS setting that I need to change? Thanks

[Robbyrobot]

I think I'd still check the memory modules individually, each one in each slot, with memtest86+ (at least 3 passes per module) just to be sure they're OK. This would also test the slots.

One other thing: are the modules matched, i.e. identical type and possibly also brand? It might be possible that a slow change in the specification over time would make them incompatible.

And of course, if you have any other modules or can borrow some for testing, it'd be worthwhile swapping and seeing what happens.

One further thing you might try is to clean the contact rows on the modules (both sides) with a rubber eraser (gently! and taking great care not to leave any crumbs of the eraser on the contacts), followed by cleaning with a Q-tip and isopropyl alcohol to get off any solid particles and grease.

As far as I know, there's nothing in the BIOS you can change to increase the compatibility of the RAM.

[PCWatchman]

OK, I'll do the testing and cleaning and report results. Thanks

[tfflivemb2]

Yeah, it sounds like there might be failing memory, or a compatability issue that might have developed.

Also, as an FYI, your system can take 544mb ram (2x256mb). You just have to be sure that they are low density PC100 sticks (16 chips, 8 on each side).

[PCWatchman]

Thanks, Robbyrobot, I cleaned contacts with eraser and 91% isopropyl. Now it boots consistently with all 288MB.

This is oldest of 2 laptops and 2 desktops at home all running XPPro. My wireless router has good firewall, so it's not slowed down by A/V. I test it regularly and never find viruses. As long as I keep it clean of malware and temp files, this little 400mhz PII performs very nicely at 288MB. Everybody at home will grab this one before the bulky HP N5470 1Ghz Athlon just because of size. I'll keep this sweet little 600E until Jesus comes back!

Tfflivemb2, do you think I'll see substantial performance increase to justify cost of upping to 2x256?

[PCWatchman]

Tfflivemb2, does it have to be 2x256, or could it be one stick of 512?

[tfflivemb2]

Tfflivemb2, does it have to be 2x256, or could it be one stick of 512?

They didn't make a 512mb stick of PC100 (low density) ram, atleast not for laptops.

It needs to be 2x256mb.

[PCWatchman]

Do you think I'll see substantial performance increase from upgrade?

[whizkid]

Better performance? It depends on what you're doing. Bring up Task Manager. (Run taskmgr or press ctrl-alt-del to bring it up.)

On the Performance tab there is a Physical Memory (K) frame. The Total there is the amount of memory Windows can use. In the Commit Charge (K) frame, if the Total there is greater than the total physical memory, Windows is using swap space and more memory would help right now. If the Commit Charge Peak is more than Physical Memory Total, the system has swapped some time since power-on, but any performance boost would likely be minimal.

If you have a lot of windows or documents open (web pages, files, games, media, etc) then memory will very likely help. And the price is pretty good now for that part too ($40 to $50 for new).

You may need to upgrade to the latest BIOS for the 256MB memory parts to work in the 600E.

[PCWatchman]

Great, thanks everybody for time spent helping. This forum rocks!

[sktn77a]

Do you think I'll see substantial performance increase from upgrade?

Depends which OS you're using - XP with SP2 needs 512 (544)Mb. Everything else should work fine with 256 (288)Mb.

[Dark Savant0]

Do you think I'll see substantial performance increase from upgrade?

Depends which OS you're using - XP with SP2 needs 512 (544)Mb. Everything else should work fine with 256 (288)Mb.

XP with SP2 will run adequately with 192MB of memory.

[tfflivemb2]

XP with SP2 will run adequately with 192MB of memory.

Adequately is one thing, efficiently is something else. I don't like running WinXP with less than 256mb...it really drags out on simple operations.

[Dark Savant0]

XP with SP2 will run adequately with 192MB of memory.

Adequately is one thing, efficiently is something else. I don't like running WinXP with less than 256mb...it really drags out on simple operations.

For basics such as web browsing and email, it is more than enough. I do understand that running anything more intensive would require more memory.

What sorts of simple operations are you referring to?

[tfflivemb2]

It takes longer to boot, open browser windows, alt-tab between programs, open office programs...

This has been on many 600Es with 400MHz CPUs...

[UDX]

I actually ran into the same problem where my old thinkpad 600 would blue screen with any memory inserted in the slot that's closer to the battery. Is this the slot that has been "questionable" for you?

Oddly enough I fixed this problem on one of the other machines as well. It was the same socket that had a problem. Someone put in 128 MB stick without realizing that it only recognized 64 Mb Stick.

Oh and b.t.w. I personally seem to like 224 MB or RAM at the minimum - kind of best bang for the buck if you think about it.

I was doing some lightscribe stuff on a Windows 2000 machine that had 192 megs of RAM. So 224 presumably, should be enough to overcome that issue.