Can MEMTEST86+ check memory running at faster bus speed?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:22:09 -0700, "JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

>Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
>> >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
>
>
>false sense of security

Snipping to create context you can argue with is a nasty Usenet habit.

>But how much data corruption might have occurred before Windows
>> throws up a BSOD? I can't really afford to run the risk of corrupt
>> data just because I want to use Windows to test my memory in the way
>> you mention.
>
>
>if there were horrible things wrong with your memory you will know it
>long before you test with SW testers.
>
>BSOD tell the tale when they come up. If there are memory registers in
>the 'cause' line you will know its memory related.

Again...RUBBISH!

>if you are that concerned about memory errors...use ECC memory
>only....

Once "validated" through testing, diagnostics and a few days of running
with an OS, modern memory modules are generally good for years of reliable
use...IME. ECC has its place of course... which is slightly different from
initial checking/validation.

>the only way to know for certain is to remove the stick and take it to
>a hardware tester.

<sigh>We all have to start somewhere when dealing with a newly built system
- memtest86 does a reasonable job and serves its purpose. It's simply part
of a proactive approach to system integrity at time of build and
installation.

This is simple stuff: we have a mbrd from one supplier, a CPU form another
and memory modules from a 3rd, all supplied with power from a 4th. Why
anyone would want to argue with the concept of running some diagnostics as
a first step beats me... possibly you rely on Dell to do that for you??ô_ô

> There are memory controllers and many other things
>indirectly controlling memory, if this is the area of concern,
>software checkers are not up to snuff, and may give you memory errors
>that are not chip related, or NOT tell you and you replace mods for no
>reason.

Hmm, seems to contradict what you just said about registers and memory
errors.<shrug> Then again, it depends on the system - AMD64 systems have
no "other things" between the CPU package and the memory, other than the
mbrd traces and sockets.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

go ahead gmac play at it...


"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in
message news:lp26n0tmv3so37rqfgg8hgo4pif4k60qhg@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:22:09 -0700, "JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com>
wrote:
>
> >Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
> >> >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
> >
> >
> >false sense of security
>
> Snipping to create context you can argue with is a nasty Usenet
habit.
>
> >But how much data corruption might have occurred before Windows
> >> throws up a BSOD? I can't really afford to run the risk of
corrupt
> >> data just because I want to use Windows to test my memory in the
way
> >> you mention.
> >
> >
> >if there were horrible things wrong with your memory you will know
it
> >long before you test with SW testers.
> >
> >BSOD tell the tale when they come up. If there are memory registers
in
> >the 'cause' line you will know its memory related.
>
> Again...RUBBISH!
>
> >if you are that concerned about memory errors...use ECC memory
> >only....
>
> Once "validated" through testing, diagnostics and a few days of
running
> with an OS, modern memory modules are generally good for years of
reliable
> use...IME. ECC has its place of course... which is slightly
different from
> initial checking/validation.
>
> >the only way to know for certain is to remove the stick and take it
to
> >a hardware tester.
>
> <sigh>We all have to start somewhere when dealing with a newly built
system
> - memtest86 does a reasonable job and serves its purpose. It's
simply part
> of a proactive approach to system integrity at time of build and
> installation.
>
> This is simple stuff: we have a mbrd from one supplier, a CPU form
another
> and memory modules from a 3rd, all supplied with power from a 4th.
Why
> anyone would want to argue with the concept of running some
diagnostics as
> a first step beats me... possibly you rely on Dell to do that for
you??ô_ô
>
> > There are memory controllers and many other things
> >indirectly controlling memory, if this is the area of concern,
> >software checkers are not up to snuff, and may give you memory
errors
> >that are not chip related, or NOT tell you and you replace mods for
no
> >reason.
>
> Hmm, seems to contradict what you just said about registers and
memory
> errors.<shrug> Then again, it depends on the system - AMD64 systems
have
> no "other things" between the CPU package and the memory, other than
the
> mbrd traces and sockets.
>
> Rgds, George Macdonald
>
> "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" -
Who, me??

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:46:39 -0700, JAD wrote:

> go ahead gmac play at it...

Top-posting kidz. <yawn>

--
Keith

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

kieth the top posting thing is real old....... if that's all you have
to say best just to keep it to yourself. You also insist that people
read only a certain way? Or stop to think that maybe due to my
accessibility settings and hardware, its more convenient for me to
post this way?

The nazis of the usenet never take into consideration the
disabled....wonder why? You group yourself with them?


"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2004.10.18.02.38.16.846379@att.bizzzz...
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:46:39 -0700, JAD wrote:
>
> > go ahead gmac play at it...
>
> Top-posting kidz. <yawn>
>
> --
> Keith
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
>> >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
>
> false sense of security

Better than blind faith.


> if there were horrible things wrong with your memory you will know it
> long before you test with SW testers.

Or you could corrupt what you write in the hard-drive installed on your
system long before you find out you have a problem with your memory.

> BSOD tell the tale when they come up. If there are memory registers in
> the 'cause' line you will know its memory related.

What makes you think you have any right to expect a bluescreen at all? I got
a complete lockup as reward for my troubles half of the time, and half of
the time, *blink*, a happy, quick reset. Testing the memory found the
problem very quickly after hours of taking the new system apart. Should have
done that first, not last.

> if you are that concerned about memory errors...use ECC memory
> only....

No one is 'concerned' about memory errors, merely aware of the possible
problem and following a good, solid practises to make sure that cheap
consumer parts work as advertised. You just need to be in the shitty
situation yourself, once, and you will not it find so easy to be clever
afterwards when someone else had problems.. and this should be a no-brainer,
since the solution was handed to you on a silver platter.

Not everyone here owns, or has easy access to a hardware memory tester.
Guess what? I don't have eeprom burner either here with me, shocked?

> the only way to know for certain is to remove the stick and take it to
> a hardware tester. There are memory controllers and many other things

But not the only way to find problems. www.simmtester.com has following to
say on the topic:

"Hardware Memory testers are designed for PC service professional who need
to test relatively high volume of modules and not for those who test only
one or two modules. "

> software checkers are not up to snuff, and may give you memory errors
> that are not chip related, or NOT tell you and you replace mods for no
> reason.

Display driver trouble is wevy wevy wevy common in Windows(R) </Elmer Budd's
voiceover>, from the symptoms you would think that it is hardware failure--
software such as display driver can crash Microsoft Windows(R) and go to the
nearest hardware tester. The hell you would, you would try to resolve this
"software problem" first-- how many times you have had malfunctioning memory
anyway? What have you done in one or two instances care to share with us?

Don't tell me. You did go directly to the hardware memory tester only to
find out that the memory works perfectly didn't you?

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

yeah and for every specific instance you named I could name others
that support my views then you then me so on and so on..if you want to
sit in front of a memory tester(software) because you fear your data
may be corrupt in the future due to memory problems go for it. Let
your machine be useless for that time...test the cooling of your
memory and case..to find out that after all night of running it while
you slept with your head on the desktop, drooling all over the mouse
pad, the system rebooted and didn't save a log.

"assaarpa" <redterminator@fap.net> wrote in message
news:ckv9h4$fv3$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> > Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
> >> >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
> >
> > false sense of security
>
> Better than blind faith.
>
>
> > if there were horrible things wrong with your memory you will know
it
> > long before you test with SW testers.
>
> Or you could corrupt what you write in the hard-drive installed on
your
> system long before you find out you have a problem with your memory.
>
> > BSOD tell the tale when they come up. If there are memory
registers in
> > the 'cause' line you will know its memory related.
>
> What makes you think you have any right to expect a bluescreen at
all? I got
> a complete lockup as reward for my troubles half of the time, and
half of
> the time, *blink*, a happy, quick reset. Testing the memory found
the
> problem very quickly after hours of taking the new system apart.
Should have
> done that first, not last.
>
> > if you are that concerned about memory errors...use ECC memory
> > only....
>
> No one is 'concerned' about memory errors, merely aware of the
possible
> problem and following a good, solid practises to make sure that
cheap
> consumer parts work as advertised. You just need to be in the shitty
> situation yourself, once, and you will not it find so easy to be
clever
> afterwards when someone else had problems.. and this should be a
no-brainer,
> since the solution was handed to you on a silver platter.
>
> Not everyone here owns, or has easy access to a hardware memory
tester.
> Guess what? I don't have eeprom burner either here with me, shocked?
>
> > the only way to know for certain is to remove the stick and take
it to
> > a hardware tester. There are memory controllers and many other
things
>
> But not the only way to find problems. www.simmtester.com has
following to
> say on the topic:
>
> "Hardware Memory testers are designed for PC service professional
who need
> to test relatively high volume of modules and not for those who test
only
> one or two modules. "
>
> > software checkers are not up to snuff, and may give you memory
errors
> > that are not chip related, or NOT tell you and you replace mods
for no
> > reason.
>
> Display driver trouble is wevy wevy wevy common in Windows(R)
</Elmer Budd's
> voiceover>, from the symptoms you would think that it is hardware
failure--
> software such as display driver can crash Microsoft Windows(R) and
go to the
> nearest hardware tester. The hell you would, you would try to
resolve this
> "software problem" first-- how many times you have had
malfunctioning memory
> anyway? What have you done in one or two instances care to share
with us?
>
> Don't tell me. You did go directly to the hardware memory tester
only to
> find out that the memory works perfectly didn't you?
>
>

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

from the symptoms you would think that it is hardware failure--
> software such as display driver can crash Microsoft Windows(R) and
go to the
> nearest hardware tester. The hell you would, you would try to
resolve this
> "software problem" first-- how many times you have had
malfunctioning memory
> anyway? What have you done in one or two instances care to share
with us?


all kinds of immature ranting clipped

exactly how many times is a BSOD caused by memory errors? (other
than ACCESS errors CAUSED BY ill written SOFTWARE/DRIVERS)

of course, if i suspected memory, I would be off to the hardware
tester,, that would be the most effient way of handling it.... but
again how many times have i needed to do that as related to BSOD's in
any Windows OS? 2%.or less...........

what your new presciption not available on your discount card? aarp

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:46:39 -0700, "JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

>go ahead gmac play at it...

Whaaat? You want me to explain the difference between proactive and
reactive?:-[]

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 04:10:44 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:23:06 -0400, George Macdonald
>> <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> put finger to keyboard and
>> composed:
>>
>>
>>>Memory testing software is nothing new - it was used on mainframes and
>>>minicomputers for years. It can generated crafted memory access patterns
>>>which may occur once a day or less in a running OS.
>>
>>
>> I agree, but I recall one particularly troublesome memory board in a
>> minicomputer during the 80's which was not faulted by regular
>> diagnostic software. This software was very intensive, probably more
>> so than Memtest-86. It generated many different patterns, and tested
>> for interference between adjacent memory cells. I ran this software
>> for several days but was not able to fault the board. However, the OS
>> and/or application software would crash about once a day with a parity
>> error. The OS was able to trap the address of this error, but could
>> not identify the faulty bit. As each bit was stored in a different
>> DRAM chip, I was facing the prospect of desoldering and replacing up
>> to 17 chips (16 + parity). Fortunately I eventually narrowed down the
>> faulty bit after writing a very simple diagnostic routine to exercise
>> this one location in a tight loop.
>>
>> The one reservation I have with RAM testing software is that some
>> appear to have no adequate test for refresh problems. Faulty refresh
>> logic is more likely to show up in normal use, but not during a memory
>> test when cells are accessed (and therefore refreshed) continuously.
>>
>>
>> - Franc Zabkar
>
>I can recount a few stories about diagnostic software that missed a
>particular type of fault too but that doesn't mean they were useless.

I did not mean to imply that at all. My anecdote was intended to
demonstrate that memory faults can be quirky and highly intermittent.
The diagnostic software I was using was very thorough - it just wasn't
"lucky" in this particular case.

As for refresh problems, I notice that the latest version of
Memtest-86 now has a "bit fade" test (test 12) which appears to target
these types of faults. Unfortunately my system bombs early on in this
test with an "unexpected interrupt error". :-(

FWIW, the old minicomputer memory diagnostic also had a test which
used the "Knaizuk algorithm". I haven't heard of this technique in
modern software, though. Perhaps this algorithm is not as useful in
testing modern DRAM architecture???


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Franc Zabkar wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 04:10:44 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>
>>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:23:06 -0400, George Macdonald
>>><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> put finger to keyboard and
>>>composed:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Memory testing software is nothing new - it was used on mainframes and
>>>>minicomputers for years. It can generated crafted memory access patterns
>>>>which may occur once a day or less in a running OS.
>>>
>>>
>>>I agree, but I recall one particularly troublesome memory board in a
>>>minicomputer during the 80's which was not faulted by regular
>>>diagnostic software. This software was very intensive, probably more
>>>so than Memtest-86. It generated many different patterns, and tested
>>>for interference between adjacent memory cells. I ran this software
>>>for several days but was not able to fault the board. However, the OS
>>>and/or application software would crash about once a day with a parity
>>>error. The OS was able to trap the address of this error, but could
>>>not identify the faulty bit. As each bit was stored in a different
>>>DRAM chip, I was facing the prospect of desoldering and replacing up
>>>to 17 chips (16 + parity). Fortunately I eventually narrowed down the
>>>faulty bit after writing a very simple diagnostic routine to exercise
>>>this one location in a tight loop.
>>>
>>>The one reservation I have with RAM testing software is that some
>>>appear to have no adequate test for refresh problems. Faulty refresh
>>>logic is more likely to show up in normal use, but not during a memory
>>>test when cells are accessed (and therefore refreshed) continuously.
>>>
>>>
>>>- Franc Zabkar
>>
>>I can recount a few stories about diagnostic software that missed a
>>particular type of fault too but that doesn't mean they were useless.
>
>
> I did not mean to imply that at all.

OK. I was looking at it in the context of other messages claiming that
memory tests were useless and misinterpreted your intent.

> My anecdote was intended to
> demonstrate that memory faults can be quirky and highly intermittent.
> The diagnostic software I was using was very thorough - it just wasn't
> "lucky" in this particular case.

Murphy's Law. hehe

My 'un lucky' incident was while preparing a demonstration for a class on
the memory diagnostic and it failed to find the defect. (woops).

>
> As for refresh problems, I notice that the latest version of
> Memtest-86 now has a "bit fade" test (test 12) which appears to target
> these types of faults. Unfortunately my system bombs early on in this
> test with an "unexpected interrupt error". :-(
>
> FWIW, the old minicomputer memory diagnostic also had a test which
> used the "Knaizuk algorithm". I haven't heard of this technique in
> modern software, though. Perhaps this algorithm is not as useful in
> testing modern DRAM architecture???

Very possible since when the technology changes so do the failure modes.


> - Franc Zabkar

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> yeah and for every specific instance you named I could name others
> that support my views then you then me so on and so on..if you want to

What you are saying is writing off software memory testers right out of the
picture and actually RECOMMEND a hardware memory tester, not a particularly
cheap piece of hardware. I got interested, please DO name a situation where
it would make sense for a normal guy without access to hardware memory
tester to explicitly start looking for one instead of simply using a
software memory tester to eliminate one possible cause for BSOD.

> sit in front of a memory tester(software) because you fear your data
> may be corrupt in the future due to memory problems go for it. Let

If you are not concerned about your data, why are you recommending a
hardware memory tester, isn't that a stretch overkill if you wouldn't care?

> your machine be useless for that time...test the cooling of your
> memory and case..to find out that after all night of running it while

Would have saved me hours of taking the system apart and little by little
converging to the correct diagnosis. With your proposed method, wouldn't be
the wiser what is causing the BSOD-- only thing I know for sure is that I
have to either mail, or take the memory modules personally to the nearest
place where I, or someone else, can perform a hardware memory test to very
likely negative results.

Also, if your machine time is to valuable wouldn't it make sense to have the
problems diagnosed as quickly as possible? You just cannot hand advice like,
"when Windows BSOD's and there is memory address mentioned as cause" to run
for the nearest hardware memory tester. That is idiotic to say the least.
Sure if the tester is in the same building maybe, beyond that, little
judgment is required to put things into perspective. That requires something
you seem to have a very short supply of.

> you slept with your head on the desktop, drooling all over the mouse
> pad, the system rebooted and didn't save a log.

Nothing similiar to this took place, you're pretty desperate aren't you?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> kieth the top posting thing is real old....... if that's all you have
> to say best just to keep it to yourself.

Like your previous creative avoiding the arguments he put down.

>You also insist that people read only a certain way?

Yeah! English is written left to right, top to bottom. Often people read
English the same way it is written, why we might never learn the awful
truth.

> Or stop to think that maybe due to my
> accessibility settings and hardware, its more convenient for me to
> post this way?

You are using Outlook and why you post that way is that you haven't mastered
shift-cursor / delete yet, poor baby.

> The nazis of the usenet never take into consideration the
> disabled....wonder why? You group yourself with them?

What, your delete button is broken?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:31:22 GMT, "Alexander Grigoriev"
<alegr@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>My MEMTEST (http://home/earthlink.net/~alegr/download/memtest.htm) allows to ...

Your link appears to be broken. This link works for me:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alegr/download/memtest.htm

>... check for refresh, by inserting a delay between memory fill and pattern
>check runs. The delay can be specified in the command line. For every other
>pass it's 2 seconds default, every 63th pass it's 60 seconds by default.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

oops.. put a slash instead of period...

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:jnl5n0tpe83bg2v5mf3i28eocrlq72k9us@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:31:22 GMT, "Alexander Grigoriev"
> <alegr@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>My MEMTEST (http://home/earthlink.net/~alegr/download/memtest.htm) allows
>>to ...
>
> Your link appears to be broken. This link works for me:
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alegr/download/memtest.htm
>
>>... check for refresh, by inserting a delay between memory fill and
>>pattern
>>check runs. The delay can be specified in the command line. For every
>>other
>>pass it's 2 seconds default, every 63th pass it's 60 seconds by default.
>
>
> - Franc Zabkar
> --
> Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:09:17 -0700, "JAD"
<Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

>kieth the top posting thing is real old....... if that's all you have
>to say best just to keep it to yourself. You also insist that people
>read only a certain way? Or stop to think that maybe due to my
>accessibility settings and hardware, its more convenient for me to
>post this way?
>
>The nazis of the usenet never take into consideration the
>disabled....wonder why? You group yourself with them?
>
>

Translation -

You're using OE, which doesn't function correctly as a
newsreader. It is not "real old".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:55:11 -0700, "JAD"
<Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

>from the symptoms you would think that it is hardware failure--
>> software such as display driver can crash Microsoft Windows(R) and
>go to the
>> nearest hardware tester. The hell you would, you would try to
>resolve this
>> "software problem" first-- how many times you have had
>malfunctioning memory
>> anyway? What have you done in one or two instances care to share
>with us?
>
>
>all kinds of immature ranting clipped
>
>exactly how many times is a BSOD caused by memory errors? (other
>than ACCESS errors CAUSED BY ill written SOFTWARE/DRIVERS)
>
>of course, if i suspected memory, I would be off to the hardware
>tester,, that would be the most effient way of handling it.... but
>again how many times have i needed to do that as related to BSOD's in
>any Windows OS? 2%.or less...........
>
>what your new presciption not available on your discount card? aarp
>

Sadly you still don't GET it.
It is, to a certain extent, irrelevant if it passed in a
(hardware) memory tester, if it fails in the system it's to
be used in. Even if you do test the memory in a tester, you
STILL _MUST_ test it in the machine it's in, else you've
skipped the most important part. If i had a memory tester
in front of me and had to choose testing ONLY in the tester
or the target motherboard with memtest86, then memtest86
would win hands down... only after a motherboard + software
test fails is the hardware tester worth spending any time
on.

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

various pages NON bias non xinux non GNU web pages




The software solutions don't work - it is constrained to test only at
the speed it's controller works at and can't do the low or high
voltage test

But like many other memory testers out there, Memtest86 is unable to
test 100 percent of a computer's memory.

.. again, no diagnostics detected any errors. Finally, I set the CAS
Latency to 2, and some errors began to pop up. RST, RST Pro and
GoldMemory all identified the errors fairly quickly (though RST passed
it in about half of its runs). MemTest86, however, never identified an
error, even after running for 24 hours solid.

MemTest86 is certainly more than adequate for the home user and
hobbyist that does not keep extremely critical data on his/her system

tested with only 2 RIMMs installed, just to make sure that the board
itself and the memory would pass in an officially sanctioned
configuration. None of the diagnostics detected any errors. I then
installed the third RIMM, and threw the diagnostics at it. Both
GoldMemory and MemTest86 ran for 24 hours without detecting a single
error.

GNU / linux that would figure and explains the obsession, NO WONDER
there are the fanatics...............

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
newsgt6n058ddvcjuuiv8n312rhtsbegqj0or@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:09:17 -0700, "JAD"
> <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
> >kieth the top posting thing is real old....... if that's all you
have
> >to say best just to keep it to yourself. You also insist that
people
> >read only a certain way? Or stop to think that maybe due to my
> >accessibility settings and hardware, its more convenient for me to
> >post this way?
> >
> >The nazis of the usenet never take into consideration the
> >disabled....wonder why? You group yourself with them?
> >
> >
>
> Translation -
>
> You're using OE, which doesn't function correctly as a
> newsreader. It is not "real old".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:10n6flhmaa482ac@corp.supernews.com...
> from the symptoms you would think that it is hardware failure--
> > software such as display driver can crash Microsoft Windows(R) and
> go to the
> > nearest hardware tester. The hell you would, you would try to

<snip>

I can't believe your all still arguing with this troll...

- It's STUPID to use your working environment to test memory (ie, wait for
BSOD while using Windows)
- There is nothing wrong with running software like Memtest to actually test
memory. If it finds an error, then you have something to work with. If it
doesn't you may still have bad memory, but it's much less likely.
- Having spare parts around is always helpful, especially when trying to
diagnose an intermittent issue, but buying spare parts "just in case" when
you get your PC is dumb (except in the case of mission critical servers)
- Buy reasonable quality parts and you shouldn't have any major issues. If
you do have issues, go slowly, doing the simple tests first and eliminating
different subsystems. Memtest is GOOD for this.

....enough children!

: )

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:51:12 -0700, "JAD"
<Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

>
>various pages NON bias non xinux non GNU web pages
>
>
>
>
>The software solutions don't work - it is constrained to test only at
>the speed it's controller works at and can't do the low or high
>voltage test
>
>But like many other memory testers out there, Memtest86 is unable to
>test 100 percent of a computer's memory.
>
>. again, no diagnostics detected any errors. Finally, I set the CAS
>Latency to 2, and some errors began to pop up. RST, RST Pro and
>GoldMemory all identified the errors fairly quickly (though RST passed
>it in about half of its runs). MemTest86, however, never identified an
>error, even after running for 24 hours solid.
>
>MemTest86 is certainly more than adequate for the home user and
>hobbyist that does not keep extremely critical data on his/her system
>
> tested with only 2 RIMMs installed, just to make sure that the board
>itself and the memory would pass in an officially sanctioned
>configuration. None of the diagnostics detected any errors. I then
>installed the third RIMM, and threw the diagnostics at it. Both
>GoldMemory and MemTest86 ran for 24 hours without detecting a single
>error.
>
>GNU / linux that would figure and explains the obsession, NO WONDER
>there are the fanatics...............
>

No software tester is perfect, nor is hardware testing
without followup using software tests on the target system.
Even so it is prudent to do so and many people catch errors
they might've otherwise missed with software testers like
memtest86.

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:54:02 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:46:39 -0700, "JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>>go ahead gmac play at it...
>
> Whaaat? You want me to explain the difference between proactive and
> reactive?:-[]

Cat's got it's tongue.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JAD <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:
> Then I gave you some knowledge about why I'm a little stuck
> with it, and you attack my disability

It appears your physical disability has affected your emotions
and mental processes. It compounds the tragedy, but you might
be able to find some help in support groups. Otherwise, you just
make your difficult life still moreso by aggression/alienation.

My sincere sympathies,
-- Robert

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

no robert i let low lives bother me................that was the
mistake.........and your 'under your breath'
put downs makes you the same. Just because you have the ability cloud
your rudeness in diplomacy doesn't make you any better. running for
office?



"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:G0add.7522$Al3.4795@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JAD <Kapasitor@coldmail.com>
wrote:
> > Then I gave you some knowledge about why I'm a little stuck
> > with it, and you attack my disability
>
> It appears your physical disability has affected your emotions
> and mental processes. It compounds the tragedy, but you might
> be able to find some help in support groups. Otherwise, you just
> make your difficult life still moreso by aggression/alienation.
>
> My sincere sympathies,
> -- Robert
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JAD <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote [reformatted]:
> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JAD <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:
>> > Then I gave you some knowledge about why I'm a little stuck
>> > with it, and you attack my disability
>>
>> It appears your physical disability has affected your emotions
>> and mental processes. It compounds the tragedy, but you might
>> be able to find some help in support groups. Otherwise, you just
>> make your difficult life still moreso by aggression/alienation.

> no robert i let low lives bother me ................ that
> was the mistake ......... and your 'under your breath'
> put downs makes you the same. Just because you have the
> ability cloud your rudeness in diplomacy doesn't make you
> any better. running for office?

Learning how not to be bothered by others is an important
life-skill for everyone.

I'm sorry you think you see "put downs" in my post.
I assure you, none are intended.

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>
.... some PLONKEE wrote something or other ....
>
> Learning how not to be bothered by others is an important
> life-skill for everyone.
>
> I'm sorry you think you see "put downs" in my post.
> I assure you, none are intended.

However I assure you I intend any put-downs, due the the PLONKEEs
rudeness, crudity, and top-posting. It is obviously a fairly low
life form.

--
"I support the Red Sox and any team that beats the Yankees"
"Any baby snookums can be a Yankee fan, it takes real moral
fiber to be a Red Sox fan"
"I listened to Toronto come back from 3:0 in '42, I plan to
watch Boston come back from 3:0 in 04"

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:03:02 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JAD <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:
>> Then I gave you some knowledge about why I'm a little stuck
>> with it, and you attack my disability
>
> It appears your physical disability has affected your emotions
> and mental processes. It compounds the tragedy, but you might
> be able to find some help in support groups. Otherwise, you just
> make your difficult life still moreso by aggression/alienation.

Physical disability? The only evidence I see of a disability is that
he's in serious need of a check-up from the neck up. What a maroon.

If he is physically disabled (I missed it), what's it got to do with
..chips, other than looking for sympathy or an excuse?

--
Keith