Win 7 updates failed?

[Wayne Carver]

OK I bought a newsed PC with a fresh install of Windows 7. I started loading my documents and a few basic programs like Adobe pdf reader, Open Office, and Mozilla Firefox. I used it all day and everything worked OK. During the day it made several Windows updates. Last night it tried to make an update and locked up or froze. There was an error message that I didn't have enough memory. I have 2gig.
I checked the system resources and it was indeed using all of the physical memory.
I turned off the PC and started in Safe-mode. It recovered by removing the updates that failed.
I turned off Auto updates until I can figure out what to do. My question is, should I try to download the update again as normal or perhaps try it in the Safe-mode with network option?
Maybe something else? Thanks.

[Wiz Feinberg]

The first thing I would do is double the RAM. If the motherboard has two open memory slots and you already have 2 x 1gb installed, buy two more of the same size and brand. If there are no more slots, order 2 x 2gb as a matched pair and replace the existing RAM. This will make a big difference in the computer's performance.

[Wayne Carver]

Good advice on the memory. I've only used this PC two days but I swear it acts like it needs more memory.
I'll have to have a look inside and see what my options are.

Should I try and do the failed update in Safe-mode or just do it under the normal boot? I made a recovery disc last night. I guess I need to make a recovery point.

My issue was I thought I was going to have to boot off of a recovery disc if the PC didn't finish removing the unfinished update. It took about 2 hours for the PC to remove the unfinished update, revert back, and boot up in Safe-mode.

Maybe I'll just wait until I get more memory to try installing any more updates.

[Jack Stoner]

Along with the additional memory, there are couple other things to consider. First the make/model of the PC would help to determine what you have and its capabilities/requirements.

Second, if this has a 64 bit OS installed, the 2GB is even worse as a 64 bit OS uses more of the available memory than a 32 bit OS. The real reason to use 64 bit OS is that it will address more than 4GB of RAM (a 32 bit will not) but if you only have 4GB or that's the maximum of the PC then you should be using the 32 bit OS.

[Wayne Carver]

Along with the additional memory, there are couple other things to consider. First the make/model of the PC would help to determine what you have and its capabilities/requirements.

Second, if this has a 64 bit OS installed, the 2GB is even worse as a 64 bit OS uses more of the available memory than a 32 bit OS. The real reason to use 64 bit OS is that it will address more than 4GB of RAM (a 32 bit will not) but if you only have 4GB or that's the maximum of the PC then you should be using the 32 bit OS.

It is not a name brand PC. It is in a In-win case. It is Core 2 Duo 3ghz, 250HD. It was used as a lease unit. It is Windows 7 64bit.
I'll bet and as you suggested, this isn't the original operating system. It had a fresh install of windows 7. The product code on the fresh install letter on the desktop is different from the produce code listed under "system properties."
I don't know if that means anything other than as you say the guy I bought it form just installed the 64bit without adding more memory.
I'd hate to reload with a 32bit as now it's up and running. Won't I be OK with just installing 4gigs of memory?
When I look inside the case tonight I'll see what kind of motherboard it has.

[Wiz Feinberg]

Wayne;
Going up from 2 to to 4gb of RAM will help whether the OS is 32 or 64 bit. What Jack was trying to explain to you is that a 64 bit OS can address and utilize many gigabytes of RAM. A 32 bit OS cannot even address all of the 4 billion+ address spaces.

This translates into IF the motherboard components are truly 64 bit compatible and the OS is installed as a 64 bit OS, then you can add as much RAM as the motherboard specs allow. This could be anywhere from 4 to 128 gigabytes.

You need to get the specs for the motherboard and its devices.

[Wayne Carver]

Thanks, guys I'm learning a lot. First I've learned a lot of 32-bit people are wasting money on memory.

Anyway my motherboard is an Intel Desktop Board model DG33TL with a Intel Core 2 Duo e8400 processor.
64-bit instruction set, 1333 FSB.

Maybe the Windows 7 64 bit was original after all. At least the motherboard and processor support 64-bit.
The motherboard supports up to 8GB of DDR2 667 or DDR2 800 DIMMS.(1.8 volt)

Intel recommends DDR2 667 with SPD timing of 5-5-5 or DDR2 800 with SPD timings of 5-5-5 or 6-6-6.
SPD type memory is recommended but not required for this motherboard.

Installed in my PC are 2 sticks of 2x1GB's Kingston KVR667D2N5/1G 1 (1.8VOLT)
128MX64-bit DDR2-667.

I'm assuming these Kingston sticks aren't SPD. I don't know if that's a big deal or not.
Considering the two I have aren't SPD, I'll buy two of the same and bring it up to 4GB.

[Wayne Carver]

Ok, I just purchased 2 sticks 2GB each. The 2GB sticks were cheaper than the 1GB sticks. They are the same as the two Kingston sticks I have installed now except they are 2GB instead of 1GB.

My motherboard has four slots, one black and blue pair are DIMM channel A sockets and the other black and blue pair are DIMM channel B sockets.

Right now I've got one 1G stick in DIMM 0 of each channel. Should I put my two new 2G sticks in DIMM 1 of each channel if I want to add to and use all four sticks?
Or should I put my two new 2G sticks in both slots of channel A and my existing two 1G sticks in the two channel B slots?

Do the two channels need to be balanced with the same amount of memory?
I think the correct way would be like this;

2gb stick in channel A, DIMM 0 (blue)
1gb stick in channel A, DIMM 1 (black)
2gb stick in channel B, DIMM 0 (blue)
1gb stick in channel B, DIMM 1 (black)

[Dave Potter]

I think the correct way would be like this;

2gb stick in channel A, DIMM 0 (blue)
1gb stick in channel A, DIMM 1 (black)
2gb stick in channel B, DIMM 0 (blue)
1gb stick in channel B, DIMM 1 (black)

That looks correct - same size stick in same color slot. It's explained in this document.

[Jack Stoner]

For proper CPU dual channel operation the 2GB RAM modules should be on the same Channel. Not like you have it now.

Normally the like colored memory slots are on the same channel. Not like you have them listed.

[Wayne Carver]

I think the correct way would be like this;

2gb stick in channel A, DIMM 0 (blue)
1gb stick in channel A, DIMM 1 (black)
2gb stick in channel B, DIMM 0 (blue)
1gb stick in channel B, DIMM 1 (black)

That looks correct - same size stick in same color slot. It's explained in this document.

Thanks for that link.

[Wayne Carver]

For proper CPU dual channel operation the 2GB RAM modules should be on the same Channel. Not like you have it now.

Normally the like colored memory slots are on the same channel. Not like you have them listed.

That's what's confusing, My colored slots are as I have them listed above. One black and one blue for each channel.

Also according to the link for my motherboard Dave just posted, they are saying install one matched pair in the blue slots of each channel and install the other matched pair in the black slots of each channel.
In their example, they have a matched pair of 256mb in the blue slots and a matched pair of 512mb in the blacks slots.
This ends up being one of each size in the two channels instead of installing the two 256mb in channel A and two 512mb in Channel B.

I initially thought it was as you suggested. At least that's what I thought trying to recall from years ago. Meaning the two matched sizes in the same channel.
Maybe each motherboard is different and this is why they color code the slots. Maybe it's more important to pair the size to color instead of pairing size to channel.

From wiki
Motherboards supporting dual-channel memory layouts typically have color-coded DIMM sockets. Coloring schemes are not standardized and have opposing meanings, depending on the motherboard manufacturer's intentions and actual motherboard design. Matching colors may either indicate that the sockets belong to the same channel (meaning that DIMM pairs should be installed to differently colored sockets), or they may be used to indicate that DIMM pairs should be installed to the same color (meaning that each socket of the same color belongs to a different channel). The motherboard's manual will provide an explanation of how to install memory for that particular unit. A matched pair of memory modules may usually be placed in the first bank of each channel, and a different-capacity pair of modules in the second bank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-cha ... chitecture

[Wayne Carver]

Well my two new 2GB each memory sticks came yesterday. They were suppose to be the exact same thing as my 1GB sticks but alas they were 800mhz instead of 667mhz.

A Google search lead to others asking this question;
What is better, 4GB running at 800mhz or 6GB running at 667GB which is what mine would revert back to if I used my new with the old.
Some thought it better to run the 4GB at 800mhz than the 6GB at 667mhz. Others thought just the opposite. That more memory always trumps speed.

Right now I'm running with just the 4GB of the new. I'll try the Windows updates tonight and see how it goes.

I might add the other 2GB of 667mhz at a later date.

I did find something odd though when I opened my PC this morning.
My mother board manual says to always populate Channel A Dimm 0.
Desktop board DG33TL has four 240-pin DDR2 DIMM sockets arranged as DIMM 0 and
DIMM 1 in both Channel A and Channel B.
Regardless of the memory configuration used (dual or single channel), Channel A,
DIMM 0 must always be populated.

My two original sticks were not in the necessary required slots. They had one in each channel but in the secondary slots.

I installed the new sticks in the correct slots, both Blue slots of each channel. DIMM 0 of Channel A populated.

[Wiz Feinberg]

Wayne;
Running matched pairs of RAM in dual channel mode is always more efficient than single channel mode. But, unmatched pairs will drop to the level of the least capable stick.

As for the clock speed, what is the current speed of your CPU?

[Mitch Drumm]

What is better, 4GB running at 800mhz or 6GB running at 667GB which is what mine would revert back to if I used my new with the old.

The answer depends on how much RAM you are using at any given moment.

If you are using every bit of the 4 and that isn't enough for the task, you'd likely be better off with 6, even if they were slower. You always want more RAM, regardless of speed, if you are using all of the available. Slow RAM is a lot better than no available RAM at all.

On the other hand, if the task requires only say 3 GB, then you'd be better off with 4 fast rather than 6 slow. The extra unused 3 GB aren't doing anything for you.

You can detect how much memory you are using at any time by looking at the performance tab of Task Manager. Right now, I'm using under 2 of my 4 and don't think I've ever used all 4.

[Jack Stoner]

The speed of the memory bus is another factor. If the max speed is 667 Mhz, for example, then the 800 Mhz will only run at 667.

Then too, if you have both 667 and 800 RAM together, they will run at 667.

[Wayne Carver]

OK, I'm getting the picture. My cpu is 3ghz and 1,333FSB.
My motherboard supports 800mhz memory.I've never seen it use over 2GB. Therefore I will just use the 4GB of 800mhz instead of the 6GB of 667.
Maybe the memory glitch loading the update was caused by no memory chip in the first slot as required by the motherboard.

[Wiz Feinberg]

Did you notice that your 667 Mhz RAM runs at a mathematical 50% of the Front Side Bus clock speed? That is a harmonic resonance. I would be curious to see some test results comparing your 800 Mhz vs 667 Mhz, based on this FSB speed.

[Wayne Carver]

Did you notice that your 667 Mhz RAM runs at a mathematical 50% of the Front Side Bus clock speed? That is a harmonic resonance. I would be curious to see some test results comparing your 800 Mhz vs 667 Mhz, based on this FSB speed.

That's a little over my head.

I finally turned automatic updates back on and downloaded the 233 updates. All went well except it took a long time. During both the download and install my memory consumption was 3.25GB or 85% and my CPU usage was up and down averaging around 56%.

Having gone over the 2GB I originally had, I can see why the "exceeded memory" warning.

[Mitch Drumm]

During both the download and install my memory consumption was 3.25GB or 85% and my CPU usage was up and down averaging around 56%.

Having gone over the 2GB I originally had, I can see why the "exceeded memory" warning.

I think I've read that Windows Update intentionally puts a big load on available memory---so you may well never use more in any other task than the 3.25 you used during updates.

I've never had more than 4 and I've checked my usage probably once a week for the last 10 years. I'm not sure I've ever seen mine above 3 and it's rarely above 2.5. I use around 1.3 after a fresh boot and normally use 1.5 to 1.8 or so, sometimes with dozens of browser tabs open.

[Wayne Carver]

I think I've read that Windows Update intentionally puts a big load on available memory---so you may well never use more in any other task than the 3.25 you used during updates.

I've never had more than 4 and I've checked my usage probably once a week for the last 10 years. I'm not sure I've ever seen mine above 3 and it's rarely above 2.5. I use around 1.3 after a fresh boot and normally use 1.5 to 1.8 or so, sometimes with dozens of browser tabs open.

Yeah I've never had a memory draw like I had with those updates. I just opened a couple of other programs and started two you tube videos in separate tabs and my memory use was 1.72.

Someone suggested adding the other two 1GB 667 sticks to bring my memory up to 6GB. I think I'm just going to stay with the 4GB 800 for awhile.
I might add it later if it appears I'm getting close to 4GB. I do understand it will drop all memory to 667. I'm not a gamer. The most I ever do is watch music videos.

I just upgraded from Windows XP with 1GB of memory so I'm not a "grab the latest" technology kind of guy.