What kind of memory to use?

[Rhino]

I have an ASUS M3A motherboard with 4 sockets for DDR2 RAM. The computer
is running Windows XP SP3 (32 bit). Currently, two of the memory sockets
(the leftmost and the third from the left) are occupied with Kingston
KVR800D2N5K2/2G memory.

I'd like to increase the memory on the computer and know from the manual
that I should have identical modules in all 4 sockets or have an
identical pair in the yellow sockets and a (possibly different)
identical pair in the black sockets.

I'd like to keep my costs down as low as possible. I need some advice on
the best thing to do here.

I don't care a whole lot whether Windows is unable to report all of the
memory as long as it can use it. Would my best plan be to acquire two
more modules identical to my current modules? Would a pair of faster
modules be advantageous or would they only run at the same speed as the
current memory? Would a pair of larger modules be advantageous? Should
my new memory be the same brand and model as the existing memory or is
it okay to mix and match vendors/models if I can get a better price?

The manual mentions that the motherboard can handle buffered and
unbuffered ECC and non-ECC memory. I know what buffering is and that it
gives better performance but I'm not sure how substantial the
improvement is given the (presumably) extra expense of having buffered
memory. I don't what ECC is so have no idea whether that is something I
really ought to pay for or whether its impact is neglible.

I'm really not a hardware guy and have no desire to be one. I'm just
trying to avoid being "penny wise and pound foolish": if spending a
_few_ (!) extra dollars gets me way better performance, I'd be inclined
to spend the money.

--
Rhino

[Paul]

Your current modules are:

[unbuffered CAS5 single sided 2x1GB]

Kingston has discontinued their CAS5 DDR2, and tends to ship the
slower CAS6 DDR2, which is still acceptable. These modules are
single sided as well (less bus loading). A possible reason for
this happening (CAS6), is there are fewer manufacturers at the chip plants,
selling DDR2 chips. The market has contracted a bit anyway, because
Micron bought one of the other companies. Memory prices started to
rise at the beginning of this year, and the rise could continue
(even though PC sales are soft). And that has to do with fewer
fabs making memory chips, in general. The companies are tired
of losing money.

KVR800D2N6K2/2G $39.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134635

(Spec sheet - this is how I know what they're made of)
http://www.valueram.com/datasheets/KVR800D2N6K2_2G.pdf

*******

For least cost, you want to:

1) Preserve existing memory. (Alternative is to sell the existing
modules on Ebay. You won't get much for them. People expect a bargain.)

2) Match existing memory (as memory types can't be mixed).

3) Match within reason. The BIOS can operate with two sets of
modules with different characteristics. You can mix a matched
pair of CAS5 with matched pair of CAS6. The BIOS sets all of
them to run at CAS6.

4) Don't buy more memory than Windows can use.

If you're not running Virtual Machines on the computer, in fact
your existing 2x1GB configuration is the lowest cost option. Typical
single programs can use up to around 1.8GB. When you add lots of memory
to the computer, the most practical way to use all of it, is to have
multiple programs open at the same time. If you want to save
money, a 2x1GB configuration, and running Photoshop all by itself,
is the most cost-effective solution.

There are ways to change that behavior, by modifying boot.ini,
but that's another post full of stuff...

The next most memory would be 2x1GB + 2x512MB for a total of 3GB. No
memory is being lost by doing this.

If you move to 2x1GB+2x1GB, then Windows shows 3.2GB free (typical value).
If you have one or more video cards with very large resident memory
present, address space is needed for that memory, and then the
amount free shown (and usable) in Windows is less. Your video card
and its memory configuration, can be part of the upgrade equation as
well. Someone with SLI video, might only get to use 2.75GB of their
installed 4GB of RAM. And for such a person (SLI or Crossfire video),
still stuck on 32 bit Windows, a memory upgrade doesn't make sense.

You can install even more memory than that, use the DataRAM RAMDisk,
and the excess memory (above 4GB on Windows 32 bit), gets used as
a fast but volatile disk drive. But that's the kind of thing that
rich people do, and since your programs themselves can't use the
memory directly, the RAMDisk method of using the excess memory,
isn't really a good cost effective solution. Maybe for a professional
doing Photoshop, it would represent good value (scratch disk on RAMDisk).
For most other uses, the RAMDisk sits largely idle and doesn't get used
(ask me how I know this :-( )

Now, when I tried Newegg, I couldn't find 2x512MB at DDR2-800,
so that makes the choice even easier. A kit of 2x1GB is going to be
your option then. That's $40. I can find 2x2GB kits (non-Kingston)
for around $55, and you could remove the existing RAM and
attempt to sell it. And break even if you can get $15 for
them.

So where does that leave us, practically speaking ?

1) 2x1GB + 2x1GB $40
2) Sell 2x1GB, buy 2x2GB, select a CAS you like $55 or more, minus your sale

Any other configurations (4x2GB), are more speculative and pointless.
If you were using a 64 bit OS, it might be different.

*******

"buffered and unbuffered ECC and non-ECC memory"

You get to use whatever you want, *if* there is no memory
already in the computer. If there is memory present already,
and you're keeping it, then you have to match the type.

The M3A manual I have here, says:

... support unbuffered ECC/non-ECC DDR2 1066*/800/667/533Mhz
memory modules

That means

unbuffered ECC
unbuffered non-ECC <--- Your current type

"Buffered" isn't even on the menu :-)

The main purpose of "Buffered", is to support larger, slower
RAM configurations. That's the 25 words or less answer. It's
not typically a desktop user's best choice (with exceptions).

And while ECC seems like a good idea, in practice it's damn
hard to get the system configured to actually use it. I fitted
ECC memory to my current system, only to find the BIOS had turned off
the EDAC (presumably to make a bug in the EDAC, go away). So when you
see ECC in a manual, it doesn't mean the idiot manufacturer
actually stands behind that statement. All you can depend on,
on a desktop, is that non-ECC (your current RAM), will work.

So just match what you've got. $40. CAS6 is good enough.

And then write me an essay, explaining why you need the memory :-)
And the essay had better be a good one. If you had a 64 bit OS,
I wouldn't have required an essay :-) There's a good chance you
won't get to use all of the new memory (depends on video card config).
Like, say you'd just bought a new video card last week, that
had 2GB on board. Mistake! No room for system RAM expansion,
in that case, with your 32 bit OS.

If you were to buy something like this, it's time to start thinking
about a 64 bit OS. You're running out of address space, for
good gaming on a 32 bit OS.

"GTX 650 2GB"
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133474

Paul

[Rhino]

Thank you for a very clear and specific recommendation! I'm in Canada so
the price may vary a bit here, although the US and Canadian dollars have
been very close to par for several years. That doesn't mean that
particular memory is available on this side of the border but I'll check
and see....

Well, I *am* thinking of upgrading my OS to Windows 8 (64 bit), which is
quite satisfactory on my laptop ....

> *******
>
> "buffered and unbuffered ECC and non-ECC memory"
>
> You get to use whatever you want, *if* there is no memory
> already in the computer. If there is memory present already,
> and you're keeping it, then you have to match the type.
>

By "type", you mean non-ECC, right? As opposed to the 800 MHz rating?

> The M3A manual I have here, says:
>
> ... support unbuffered ECC/non-ECC DDR2 1066*/800/667/533Mhz
> memory modules
>
> That means
>
> unbuffered ECC
> unbuffered non-ECC <--- Your current type
>
> "Buffered" isn't even on the menu :-)
>

Sorry, I misread that and interpolated a buffered/unbuffered choice
which wasn't there.

> The main purpose of "Buffered", is to support larger, slower
> RAM configurations. That's the 25 words or less answer. It's
> not typically a desktop user's best choice (with exceptions).
>
> And while ECC seems like a good idea, in practice it's damn
> hard to get the system configured to actually use it. I fitted
> ECC memory to my current system, only to find the BIOS had turned off
> the EDAC (presumably to make a bug in the EDAC, go away). So when you
> see ECC in a manual, it doesn't mean the idiot manufacturer
> actually stands behind that statement. All you can depend on,
> on a desktop, is that non-ECC (your current RAM), will work.
>
> So just match what you've got. $40. CAS6 is good enough.
>
> And then write me an essay, explaining why you need the memory :-)
> And the essay had better be a good one. If you had a 64 bit OS,
> I wouldn't have required an essay :-) There's a good chance you
> won't get to use all of the new memory (depends on video card config).
> Like, say you'd just bought a new video card last week, that
> had 2GB on board. Mistake! No room for system RAM expansion,
> in that case, with your 32 bit OS.
>

I realize your demand was tongue in cheek but I really just want to get
some key applications working better. One won't start at all. But maybe
this memory upgrade is misguided, at least until I upgrade to a 64 bit
OS. Maybe I just need to bite the bullet and go through my processes
shutting down things that don't need to be running....

The problem with that is trying to determine exactly what some of those
processes are. In some cases, when you google on them, one expert will
say that the process is a bad thing that shouldn't be running while
another expert will say its a good thing. I find it hard to tell who is
the more credible expert sometimes. Going to a third, fourth and fifth
source doesn't help because I don't know how credible any of them is and
they typically don't all line up on one side with just one expert on the
other side.

> If you were to buy something like this, it's time to start thinking
> about a 64 bit OS. You're running out of address space, for
> good gaming on a 32 bit OS.
>
> "GTX 650 2GB"
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133474
>
>

My current video card is an NVideo GeForce 9500 GT with 1024 MB of
memory. It seems pretty satisfactory. The only weird thing is that I
sometimes get partial redraws of my screen that leave fragments of other
screens that formerly would have been erased. I don't know if that is
the fault of the drivers - I was up-to-date the last time I looked a few
months ago - or if something else is going on, perhaps in Windows. I
don't know where to research that problem so I'm just living with it.


--
Rhino

[Paul]

Rhino wrote:
> On 2013-04-12 14:33, Paul wrote:

<<response inline>>

>>
>> "buffered and unbuffered ECC and non-ECC memory"
>>
>> You get to use whatever you want, *if* there is no memory
>> already in the computer. If there is memory present already,
>> and you're keeping it, then you have to match the type.
>>
> By "type", you mean non-ECC, right? As opposed to the 800 MHz rating?

Yes. If you look at the ECC DIMM, you might see nine memory chips
on one side of the module. A non-ECC DIMM has eight memory chips
on one side of the module. If you mix the two, it means one
module is driving the bus, the other module is not. The module
without ECC chip present, cannot drive a syndrome. Havok ensues.

Either all the modules should have nine chips, or all the modules
should have eight chips. When all the modules have eight chips,
the "ECC lane" is turned off on the memory controller.

The BIOS wouldn't allow you to mix them anyway. You'll get mournful
"beeping", if you stick an ECC and a non-ECC in the machine at the
same time.

It's OK to mix speeds, like DDR2-667 and DDR2-800, as the BIOS just
picks the slower one. But beware of being "too creative", as some
chipsets are missing say, the slowest operating frequency. Make
sure, at the very least, that the new module falls within the values
listed in the manual. If the manual listed DDR2-533 and you bought
DDR2-400, well, that might be bad news.

I didn't mention the speed at all, because, well, you can still
buy DDR2-800 and should have no trouble getting modules of the
same speed.

> I realize your demand was tongue in cheek but I really just want to get
> some key applications working better. One won't start at all. But maybe
> this memory upgrade is misguided, at least until I upgrade to a 64 bit
> OS. Maybe I just need to bite the bullet and go through my processes
> shutting down things that don't need to be running....
>
> The problem with that is trying to determine exactly what some of those
> processes are. In some cases, when you google on them, one expert will
> say that the process is a bad thing that shouldn't be running while
> another expert will say its a good thing. I find it hard to tell who is
> the more credible expert sometimes. Going to a third, fourth and fifth
> source doesn't help because I don't know how credible any of them is and
> they typically don't all line up on one side with just one expert on the
> other side.

In Task Manager, you can add some columns to the display if there aren't
enough columns of info. You can look at the "Mem Usage". For things which
aren't using much RAM, there's no point bonking them with an End Task :-)
If I look at mine right now, only the stuff I'm using, is hard on memory.
I have a game using 700MB right now, which I'm alt-tabbed out of.
Spoolsv is using 5MB, and I'm not going to "get rich" by killing that.

>
>> If you were to buy something like this, it's time to start thinking
>> about a 64 bit OS. You're running out of address space, for
>> good gaming on a 32 bit OS.
>>
>> "GTX 650 2GB"
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133474
>>
>>
>
> My current video card is an NVideo GeForce 9500 GT with 1024 MB of
> memory. It seems pretty satisfactory. The only weird thing is that I
> sometimes get partial redraws of my screen that leave fragments of other
> screens that formerly would have been erased. I don't know if that is
> the fault of the drivers - I was up-to-date the last time I looked a few
> months ago - or if something else is going on, perhaps in Windows. I
> don't know where to research that problem so I'm just living with it.

OK. To give an example, I have a 512MB video card. I get to use 3.2GB
when 4GB is installed. If I owned a 1024MB video card, I would be
seeing 2.75GB roughly, available for usage. In other words, 3.2GB - 0.5GB.

So if you buy the 2x1GB upgrade, you will get to use 0.75GB of it.
At least, with the 32 bit OS. At some future date, with your future
64 bit OS, then almost all of it will be available. (Address space
needed is 4GB RAM plus 1GB video card, or 5GB of addresses in usage,
while the 64 bit OS is running.) There's always some tiny bit of RAM
reserved for something, that the OS can't access (like, maybe a megabyte
or so, here or there).

*******

Sticking with the 32 bit OS again, this mentions how to allow an
application to use a bit more RAM. Normally, the kernel / application
split, in a 4GB window, is 2GB for each one. If I run Photoshop in x32,
it's going to see the 2GB limitation. And in typical usage, my image
editors here, stop at around 1.8GB. I think the Prime95 torture tester
stops at 1.8GB as well. If you use the /3GB switch in boot.ini,
that changes the kernel / applications split. But doing so, may
also put pressure on Pool management, so making changes like that,
isn't always without side effects.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb124810(v=EXCHG.65).aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTLDR (see /3GB section)

Now, I would have tested that here, but I don't have any applications,
with the appropriate flag set on them. The application has to agree
to use 3GB as well. So two ingredients are needed.

In this example page, Visual Studio is being set, to mark the application
as "Large Address Aware". That allows it to go from the 1.8GB limit, to
around 2.8GB limit, when the boot.ini has /3GB added to it. Notice how
they mention the linker is involved, implying a difference to the
actual generated code.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wz223b1z(v=VS.80).aspx

When I read articles like this (discussion of application to change
LAA flag on an executable), I can never be sure whether the application
itself is actually compiled to handle that amount of memory or not. You'd
think, if this was a "free lunch", they'd all be compiled with
that bit set. I think when I did some experiments here, I couldn't
find anything with LAA set by default.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112556

HTH,
Paul

[Rhino]

On 2013-04-12 20:38, Paul wrote:
> Rhino wrote:
>> On 2013-04-12 14:33, Paul wrote:
>
> <<response inline>>
>
>>>
>>> "buffered and unbuffered ECC and non-ECC memory"
>>>
>>> You get to use whatever you want, *if* there is no memory
>>> already in the computer. If there is memory present already,
>>> and you're keeping it, then you have to match the type.
>>>
>> By "type", you mean non-ECC, right? As opposed to the 800 MHz rating?
>
> Yes. If you look at the ECC DIMM, you might see nine memory chips
> on one side of the module. A non-ECC DIMM has eight memory chips
> on one side of the module. If you mix the two, it means one
> module is driving the bus, the other module is not. The module
> without ECC chip present, cannot drive a syndrome. Havok ensues.
>

I've never heard "syndrome" used in a computer context before. I thought
it was purely a medical term ;-) But I get your point: you don't want to
mix ECC and non-ECC memory.

> Either all the modules should have nine chips, or all the modules
> should have eight chips. When all the modules have eight chips,
> the "ECC lane" is turned off on the memory controller.
>
> The BIOS wouldn't allow you to mix them anyway. You'll get mournful
> "beeping", if you stick an ECC and a non-ECC in the machine at the
> same time.
>
> It's OK to mix speeds, like DDR2-667 and DDR2-800, as the BIOS just
> picks the slower one. But beware of being "too creative", as some
> chipsets are missing say, the slowest operating frequency. Make
> sure, at the very least, that the new module falls within the values
> listed in the manual. If the manual listed DDR2-533 and you bought
> DDR2-400, well, that might be bad news.
>
> I didn't mention the speed at all, because, well, you can still
> buy DDR2-800 and should have no trouble getting modules of the
> same speed.
>

I checked with the computer store I like best and they have the exact
memory you suggested in stock for $44.99 before tax. I'm going to take a
run at reducing my memory usage by turning off programs first, then buy
the memory if reducing processes doesn't do the trick.

I really should clean up the processes before throwing hardware at the
problem. With a bit of luck, that will solve the problem without having
to spend money.

>> I realize your demand was tongue in cheek but I really just want to
>> get some key applications working better. One won't start at all. But
>> maybe this memory upgrade is misguided, at least until I upgrade to a
>> 64 bit OS. Maybe I just need to bite the bullet and go through my
>> processes shutting down things that don't need to be running....
>>
>> The problem with that is trying to determine exactly what some of
>> those processes are. In some cases, when you google on them, one
>> expert will say that the process is a bad thing that shouldn't be
>> running while another expert will say its a good thing. I find it hard
>> to tell who is the more credible expert sometimes. Going to a third,
>> fourth and fifth source doesn't help because I don't know how credible
>> any of them is and they typically don't all line up on one side with
>> just one expert on the other side.
>
> In Task Manager, you can add some columns to the display if there aren't
> enough columns of info. You can look at the "Mem Usage". For things which
> aren't using much RAM, there's no point bonking them with an End Task :-)
> If I look at mine right now, only the stuff I'm using, is hard on memory.
> I have a game using 700MB right now, which I'm alt-tabbed out of.
> Spoolsv is using 5MB, and I'm not going to "get rich" by killing that.
>

In the past, I've just used Task Manager to get the task names, then I
google them and see what I can live without. As I said though, some
sites label a given task as evil while others say the same task is
harmless so I get torn about which one to believe. I'll probably end up
disabling everything that isn't universally deemed as good from starting
in msconfig and see what happens; I'll just turn those services and
tasks back on if it turns out there absence is a problem.

>>
>>> If you were to buy something like this, it's time to start thinking
>>> about a 64 bit OS. You're running out of address space, for
>>> good gaming on a 32 bit OS.
>>>
>>> "GTX 650 2GB"
>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133474
>>>

I'm not a big gamer. I don't own _any_ of those first person shooter
games and have never even seen a game of World of Warcraft or whatever
people are playing these days. I'm perfectly happy using my jigsaw
puzzle programs or playing my 2003 Hoyle Games (Mahjong, Hearts, etc.).
Pretty boring for real gamers ;-)

>>>
>>
>> My current video card is an NVideo GeForce 9500 GT with 1024 MB of
>> memory. It seems pretty satisfactory. The only weird thing is that I
>> sometimes get partial redraws of my screen that leave fragments of
>> other screens that formerly would have been erased. I don't know if
>> that is the fault of the drivers - I was up-to-date the last time I
>> looked a few months ago - or if something else is going on, perhaps in
>> Windows. I don't know where to research that problem so I'm just
>> living with it.
>
> OK. To give an example, I have a 512MB video card. I get to use 3.2GB
> when 4GB is installed. If I owned a 1024MB video card, I would be
> seeing 2.75GB roughly, available for usage. In other words, 3.2GB - 0.5GB.
>

So you're saying I would get a lot of memory back by using a video card
with 512 MB. But that would leave me with a surplus video card and I'd
be out whatever a lesser video card would cost. I'm not sure what they
cost but I suspect it would be cheaper to buy more memory than to change
the video card....

> So if you buy the 2x1GB upgrade, you will get to use 0.75GB of it.
> At least, with the 32 bit OS. At some future date, with your future
> 64 bit OS, then almost all of it will be available. (Address space
> needed is 4GB RAM plus 1GB video card, or 5GB of addresses in usage,
> while the 64 bit OS is running.) There's always some tiny bit of RAM
> reserved for something, that the OS can't access (like, maybe a megabyte
> or so, here or there).
>

64 bit sounds better but that raises a bunch of new questions: Will all
of my apps even run in 64-bit? Or will many of them run in 32 bit mode
anyway and not even benefit from the extra memory?

And what of my 3 TB extra SATA hard drive? (I've also got two 750 GB
drives.) The 3 TB drive needed special handling to get XP to recognize
it. I've got Acronis on it to make the whole 3 TB visible/usable. I
really don't know what happens if I upgrade to even 64 bit XP, let alone
a later Windows.

Yikes. This sounds like it's going to occupy a lot of my time if I try
to understand all of this and figure out how to apply it. I'll pass on
that for now. I've got other things on the go that have to take
priority, at least for the next few days.

I certainly appreciate all your help and will post back again when I'm
ready to act on this.

--
Rhino

[Paul]

Rhino wrote:

>
> I certainly appreciate all your help and will post back again when I'm
> ready to act on this.
>

I wouldn't change out the video card. If you install a 2x1GB kit
now, it costs you $45 and you get an extra 0.75GB (roughly). If
that solves your problem, you're done.

If a new video card costs $100, and has 512MB, two things happen.
Your upgrade costs $100 + $45, and you get 0.75GB + 0.5GB more.
The upgrade price is getting out of hand. And at some point in
the future, you'll be putting the other video card back, because
you need the onboard memory.

If you'd bought a copy of Windows 8 x64 in January, for the intro
price of $39.95, that would have solved the address space problem, with
a bit more economy. Even if you needed to add ClassicShell to
"make it look nice".

Go back to your Task Manager, and see if 0.75GB is enough. Start
looking at the Mem Usage column. If the column is not there, you
can add columns to the Task Manager. I like to add "Read Bytes"
and "Write Bytes" columns to mine, as it makes it easier to predict
when a backup program is about to finish :-) You can have lots of
fun with Task Manager.

HTH,
Paul

[Rhino]

On 2013-04-13 17:11, Paul wrote:
> Rhino wrote:
>
>>
>> I certainly appreciate all your help and will post back again when I'm
>> ready to act on this.
>>
>
> I wouldn't change out the video card. If you install a 2x1GB kit
> now, it costs you $45 and you get an extra 0.75GB (roughly). If
> that solves your problem, you're done.
>
> If a new video card costs $100, and has 512MB, two things happen.
> Your upgrade costs $100 + $45, and you get 0.75GB + 0.5GB more.
> The upgrade price is getting out of hand. And at some point in
> the future, you'll be putting the other video card back, because
> you need the onboard memory.
>
> If you'd bought a copy of Windows 8 x64 in January, for the intro
> price of $39.95, that would have solved the address space problem, with
> a bit more economy. Even if you needed to add ClassicShell to
> "make it look nice".
>

I'm fine with Windows 8 just the way it is. I had an uncomfortable hour
or two with it at first as I tried to figure out how to close apps,
install programs that weren't in the Windows Store, or find things like
the Control Panel but once I'd found out how to do those things, I was
fine. I've never spent that much time with Vista or Windows 7 anyway so
trying to make Win8 look like those is just not that helpful to me.

I do regret not taking advantage of the intro price though. I didn't
realize it was just a limited time price; I thought that was the
permanent price of Win8. In hindsight, I should have known better. It
seems obvious now that Microsoft wouldn't knock 90% off the price of
Windows for the long term.

> Go back to your Task Manager, and see if 0.75GB is enough. Start
> looking at the Mem Usage column. If the column is not there, you
> can add columns to the Task Manager. I like to add "Read Bytes"
> and "Write Bytes" columns to mine, as it makes it easier to predict
> when a backup program is about to finish :-) You can have lots of
> fun with Task Manager.
>

Yes, I want to get on this in the next day or two. It seems best to see
if I'll get signicant advantage from the memory before spending even $50
(plus 13% tax!)


--
Rhino

[hugh....@hotmail.com]

Paul (or anyone else following this thread),

I had an impulsive moment and went ahead and bought the memory. (Kingston Valueram KVR800D2N6K2/2G). Unfortunately, it's causing major problems! Luckily I have the laptop otherwise I couldn't even post here under this ID.

I shutdown the desktop and installed the new memory in the vacant slots, which where the second and fourth from the left. I powered up the desktop again but nothing is displaying on the monitor. It's a Samsung T260 and absolutely nothing appears on the monitor. If I powercycle the monitor, it cycles through the three standard options, Digital, HDMI and Analog, but pressing the space bar does not get it to select the correct option, Digital, the way it always has in the past. I've checked all the cable connections to the monitor and everything seems to be property connected. Finally, I shut the computer down again with the power switch and removed the new memory, assuming it was the culprit. But even with the memory removed, I get the same misbehaviour.

I've buggered something up, that's for sure, but I'm not sure what.

There's one clue that probably tells a more hardware-oriented guy what's wrong. Unfortunately, that's not me. I have this copper-coloured butterfly shaped thing installed over the CPU; I seem to recall that it's some kind of heat sink/cooling device for the CPU. It has a fan spinning beneath it. Ever since I put the new memory in - and continuing now - there's a bright red LED flashing when the computer is turned on. I think it's trying to tell me something but I'm not sure what. Is it suddenly having overheating problems because of the additional memory? But why wouldn't removing the new memory fix that? Or did I bump this cooling thing while trying to insert the memory?

How do I sort this out? The desktop is completely useless in its current state. That's my workhorse so I really need to get it working again.

--
Rhino

[Paul]

I think we better narrow down, where this red LED is.

The manual only shows a green LED, in the lower right hand corner (SB_PWR).
And that LED is not an error LED as such.

http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/132/m3a.gif

Paul