On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:34:23 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa
wrote:

On Feb 21, 3:53*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 03:36:27 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa

wrote:
You would think the biggest bottle-neck would be your ram at 160Mhz?
(166 for DDR single-channel). You would run great using XP or Win2K.

160MHz would make it DDR2-667Mhz or PC-5300 memory. *With 64 bit
memory transfers (normal for a 64 bit OS and an AMD X2 processor), the
transfer rate is:
* *xfer rate = clock rate * bus multiplier * DDR doubler * 64 bits
* * * * * * *= 160 Mhz * ** * *2 * * * * * * * 2 * * * * * 64
* * * * * * *= 5120 MBytes/sec
Methinks that's fast enough for most applications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR2_SDRAM#Chips_and_modules

I am NO expert, but it appears you are just plugging numbers where you
want. He has DDR single-channel. Clock speed multipliers raise by
increments of 33...so how can 160 be considered valid?

Well, I'll admit that I'm making a substantial number of guesses due
to the usual lack of supplied details.

The 160Mhz memory clock is the real clue as DDR-333 is 166MHz while
DDR2-667 (PC2-5300) is 160MHz. You had it backwards (but I didn't
initially notice).

Whether the memory is slow or fast doesn't matter. The problem is
that the operating system is showing a substantial memory leak, and
exhibiting a corresponding slow down. Neither memory configuration
should have such a slow down.




--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558