Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

question about memtest86

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 23, 2004 3:17:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

What options should be changed under (c)onfiguration for a really thorough
testing of the modules - I am trying to determine if a module is
defective...

Also, I changed a setting under "Memory Sizing" from BIOS-STD to BIOS-ALL
and I immediatly got a ton of errors. Is this normal?

More about : question memtest86

Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 23, 2004 11:10:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"ZigZag Master" <zigzagmasterSPAMMY@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6bc29$advqr$1@ID-226470.news.uni-berlin.de...
> What options should be changed under (c)onfiguration for a really thorough
> testing of the modules - I am trying to determine if a module is
> defective...
>
> Also, I changed a setting under "Memory Sizing" from BIOS-STD to BIOS-ALL
> and I immediatly got a ton of errors. Is this normal?
>
I no longer use this app because it does not define pratical memory use.

For instance: It ran my memory, all checks okay, in dos.

A memory stick failure when installing windows xp. I took me several hours
to pinpoint that memory stick.

That memory stick works fine by itself/ 512mb pc2700 ddr, will not work with
another 512 from the same mfg.

my 2 cents
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 24, 2004 6:22:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:10:49 -0700, xman Charlie wrote:

>
> "ZigZag Master" <zigzagmasterSPAMMY@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c6bc29$advqr$1@ID-226470.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> What options should be changed under (c)onfiguration for a really thorough
>> testing of the modules - I am trying to determine if a module is
>> defective...
>>
>> Also, I changed a setting under "Memory Sizing" from BIOS-STD to BIOS-ALL
>> and I immediatly got a ton of errors. Is this normal?
>>
> I no longer use this app because it does not define pratical memory use.
>
> For instance: It ran my memory, all checks okay, in dos.
What the hell does it mean the phrase above?? In dos???
It is clear you've never seen memtest86 in all your life.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 26, 2004 6:16:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.04.24.02.22.59.18204@your.house.com...
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:10:49 -0700, xman Charlie wrote:
>
> >
> > "ZigZag Master" <zigzagmasterSPAMMY@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c6bc29$advqr$1@ID-226470.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> What options should be changed under (c)onfiguration for a really
thorough
> >> testing of the modules - I am trying to determine if a module is
> >> defective...
> >>
> >> Also, I changed a setting under "Memory Sizing" from BIOS-STD to
BIOS-ALL
> >> and I immediatly got a ton of errors. Is this normal?
> >>
> > I no longer use this app because it does not define pratical memory use.
> >
> > For instance: It ran my memory, all checks okay, in dos.
> What the hell does it mean the phrase above?? In dos???
> It is clear you've never seen memtest86 in all your life.

Its clear that you are an aggressive, rude person who doesn't know how
memtest86 works.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 26, 2004 6:16:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:16:55 +0100, Chip wrote:


> Its clear that you are an aggressive, rude person who doesn't know how
> memtest86 works.
I repeat:
> For instance: It ran my memory, all checks okay, in dos.
What the hell does it mean the phrase above?? In dos???
Could you get the point? Do you understand that the phrase cited does not
make any sense ?
Why one has to blame an excellent piece of software just because "his
cousin once told him there is a dude I don't remember that once used that
memcheck software under windows xp 3.11"??
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 26, 2004 6:16:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"Chip" <anneonymouse@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:c6j23m$ciijg$1@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.04.24.02.22.59.18204@your.house.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:10:49 -0700, xman Charlie wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "ZigZag Master" <zigzagmasterSPAMMY@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:c6bc29$advqr$1@ID-226470.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> >> What options should be changed under (c)onfiguration for a really
> thorough
>> >> testing of the modules - I am trying to determine if a module is
>> >> defective...
>> >>
>> >> Also, I changed a setting under "Memory Sizing" from BIOS-STD to
> BIOS-ALL
>> >> and I immediatly got a ton of errors. Is this normal?
>> >>
>> > I no longer use this app because it does not define pratical memory
>> > use.
>> >
>> > For instance: It ran my memory, all checks okay, in dos.
>> What the hell does it mean the phrase above?? In dos???
>> It is clear you've never seen memtest86 in all your life.
>
> Its clear that you are an aggressive, rude person who doesn't know how
> memtest86 works.
>
>

I think the problem may be that some don't realize that DOS is not
necessarily MS-DOS, or even PC-DOS, but it is a Disk Operating System, and
as such it is run on DOS, as it is run on either a Floppy Disk, or a CD
Disc.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 26, 2004 6:16:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

http://www.memtest86.com/#download1

Looks like the Disk Operating System is built on or at least from Linux. I
remember using two versions of DOS called TRS-DOS and LDOS that ran on the
TRS80 Model 3 & 4. And of course, these ran on the Z80 processor.

Note the listing of *.h files. :o )

..
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 7,726 bootsect.S
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 11,408 config.c
03/11/2004 05:09 PM 1,020 config.h
04/26/2004 12:13 PM 0 contents.txt
03/11/2004 11:56 AM 18,564 controller.c
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 177 controller.h
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 1,055 defs.h
03/11/2004 11:56 AM 23,989 elf.h
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 19,888 head.S
03/11/2004 11:57 AM 18,252 init.c
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 3,460 io.h
03/11/2004 11:56 AM 20,202 lib.c
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 3,668 linuxbios.c
03/11/2004 11:56 AM 2,528 linuxbios_tables.h
03/11/2004 12:20 PM 13,277 main.c
03/11/2004 11:56 AM 2,996 Makefile
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 852 makeiso.sh
03/11/2004 05:21 PM 13,773 memsize.c
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 231 memtest.bin.lds
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 131 memtest.lds
03/11/2004 11:56 AM 890 memtest_shared.lds
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 3,511 patn.c
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 3,547 pci.c
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 4,158 pci.h
03/19/2004 12:35 PM 67,648 precomp.bin
03/19/2004 01:07 PM 34,273 README
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 1,933 README.build-process
03/11/2004 11:56 AM 7,746 reloc.c
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 2,470 screen_buffer.c
03/11/2004 11:56 AM 623 screen_buffer.h
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 6,213 serial.h
03/11/2004 11:45 AM 2,492 setup.S
03/11/2004 11:56 AM 129 stddef.h
03/11/2004 11:56 AM 1,325 stdint.h
03/11/2004 05:22 PM 30,164 test.c
03/11/2004 11:56 AM 6,721 test.h
34 File(s) 337,040 bytes
April 26, 2004 6:58:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.04.26.13.38.47.443855@your.house.com...
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:16:55 +0100, Chip wrote:
>
>
> > Its clear that you are an aggressive, rude person who doesn't know how
> > memtest86 works.
> I repeat:
> > For instance: It ran my memory, all checks okay, in dos.

> What the hell does it mean the phrase above?? In dos???

What he means is, its a DOS based program (MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS...
whatever).

> Could you get the point? Do you understand that the phrase cited does not
> make any sense ?

Made sense to me.

> Why one has to blame an excellent piece of software just because "his
> cousin once told him there is a dude I don't remember that once used that
> memcheck software under windows xp 3.11"??

Eh??? What are you on about?

The point is, Memtest has to make some assumptions about the memory map for
your particular PC. Otherwise it would try to test memory that isn't
actually there, and then it would wrongly show errors. Its kindof "OK" at
this, but its not brilliant. Because its DOS based, it typically misses
areas of memory that do actually get used in Windows. So its not that
uncommon to find a clean bill of health in Memtest, and yet still get
Windows memory errors.

This doesn't mean that Memtest is useless. And neither did xman say it was
useless. But it does mean you have to understand its limitations.

Cheers,

Chip
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 26, 2004 6:58:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:58:34 +0100, Chip wrote:

> "The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.04.26.13.38.47.443855@your.house.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:16:55 +0100, Chip wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Its clear that you are an aggressive, rude person who doesn't know how
>> > memtest86 works.
>> I repeat:
>> > For instance: It ran my memory, all checks okay, in dos.
>
>> What the hell does it mean the phrase above?? In dos???
>
> What he means is, its a DOS based program (MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS...
> whatever).
>
Exactly. So he hasn't got a clue. memtest doesn't run under an os.

>> Could you get the point? Do you understand that the phrase cited does not
>> make any sense ?
>
> Made sense to me.
>
>> Why one has to blame an excellent piece of software just because "his
>> cousin once told him there is a dude I don't remember that once used that
>> memcheck software under windows xp 3.11"??
>
> Eh??? What are you on about?
>
It's called sarcasm. You haven't got the point again.
> The point is, Memtest has to make some assumptions about the memory map for
> your particular PC. Otherwise it would try to test memory that isn't
> actually there, and then it would wrongly show errors. Its kindof "OK" at
> this, but its not brilliant. Because its DOS based, it typically misses
> areas of memory that do actually get used in Windows.
Nonsense.
You too don't know what you're talking about. No dos, no windows, no os/2,
no VMS, no UNICOS. Nothing but an excellent memtest.
Running another tester that needs an os is a waste of time. But it's too
long to explain you why.
April 26, 2004 7:04:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

BTW, Microsoft's Window Memory Diagnostic tool is a good alternative.

You can find it here:

http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp

Cheers again

Chip
April 26, 2004 8:37:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.04.26.14.20.27.651199@your.house.com...
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:58:34 +0100, Chip wrote:
>
> > "The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
> > news:p an.2004.04.26.13.38.47.443855@your.house.com...
> >> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:16:55 +0100, Chip wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Its clear that you are an aggressive, rude person who doesn't know
how
> >> > memtest86 works.
> >> I repeat:
> >> > For instance: It ran my memory, all checks okay, in dos.
> >
> >> What the hell does it mean the phrase above?? In dos???
> >
> > What he means is, its a DOS based program (MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS...
> > whatever).
> >
> Exactly. So he hasn't got a clue. memtest doesn't run under an os.
>
> >> Could you get the point? Do you understand that the phrase cited does
not
> >> make any sense ?
> >
> > Made sense to me.
> >
> >> Why one has to blame an excellent piece of software just because "his
> >> cousin once told him there is a dude I don't remember that once used
that
> >> memcheck software under windows xp 3.11"??
> >
> > Eh??? What are you on about?
> >
> It's called sarcasm. You haven't got the point again.
> > The point is, Memtest has to make some assumptions about the memory map
for
> > your particular PC. Otherwise it would try to test memory that isn't
> > actually there, and then it would wrongly show errors. Its kindof "OK"
at
> > this, but its not brilliant. Because its DOS based, it typically misses
> > areas of memory that do actually get used in Windows.
> Nonsense.
> You too don't know what you're talking about. No dos, no windows, no os/2,
> no VMS, no UNICOS. Nothing but an excellent memtest.
> Running another tester that needs an os is a waste of time. But it's too
> long to explain you why.

So, memtest just runs "on its own" does it?

Didn't you stop to think how does memtest actually display anything on
screen? Or take input from your keyboard? Do you think the memtest authors
decided to write all their own device drivers, just for the hell of it?
Well I can tell you, they didn't.

Chip
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 26, 2004 8:37:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

Chip wrote:

> "The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.04.26.14.20.27.651199@your.house.com...
>
>>
>>Nonsense.
>>You too don't know what you're talking about. No dos, no windows, no os/2,
>>no VMS, no UNICOS. Nothing but an excellent memtest.
>>Running another tester that needs an os is a waste of time. But it's too
>>long to explain you why.
>
>
> So, memtest just runs "on its own" does it?

Yes.


> Didn't you stop to think how does memtest actually display anything on
> screen? Or take input from your keyboard? Do you think the memtest authors
> decided to write all their own device drivers, just for the hell of it?
> Well I can tell you, they didn't.

You seem pretty sure of yourself, Chip. But you're quite wrong.
memtest86 does not run on DOS. Just because you see text on the
screen, that in no way means that it's DOS.

Some of the memtest86 code is based on the Linux 1.2.1 kernel, but it
indeed does not run "on top" of any OS. Saying that memtest86 isn't
that great because it misses areas of memory used by Windows because it
is DOS-based is completely ridiculous.


-WD
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 26, 2004 8:48:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:37:11 +0100, Chip wrote:


> So, memtest just runs "on its own" does it?
>
> Didn't you stop to think how does memtest actually display anything on
> screen? Or take input from your keyboard? Do you think the memtest authors
> decided to write all their own device drivers, just for the hell of it?
> Well I can tell you, they didn't.
>
> Chip
No, of course it bears a full OS, with its scheduler, I/O and all that.
I'll run my next apps, better yet my cluster under its OS.

Luckily you're here to explain us how those things work.
April 28, 2004 1:01:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"Will Dormann" <wdormann@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:FVajc.4042$643.2649@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> Chip wrote:
>
> > "The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
> > news:p an.2004.04.26.14.20.27.651199@your.house.com...
> >
> >>
> >>Nonsense.
> >>You too don't know what you're talking about. No dos, no windows, no
os/2,
> >>no VMS, no UNICOS. Nothing but an excellent memtest.
> >>Running another tester that needs an os is a waste of time. But it's too
> >>long to explain you why.
> >
> >
> > So, memtest just runs "on its own" does it?
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > Didn't you stop to think how does memtest actually display anything on
> > screen? Or take input from your keyboard? Do you think the memtest
authors
> > decided to write all their own device drivers, just for the hell of it?
> > Well I can tell you, they didn't.
>
> You seem pretty sure of yourself, Chip. But you're quite wrong.
> memtest86 does not run on DOS. Just because you see text on the
> screen, that in no way means that it's DOS.
>
> Some of the memtest86 code is based on the Linux 1.2.1 kernel, but it
> indeed does not run "on top" of any OS. Saying that memtest86 isn't
> that great because it misses areas of memory used by Windows because it
> is DOS-based is completely ridiculous.
>
>

OK I got it wrong-ish. I had thought that Memtest86 ran on a DOS
derivative. Having browsed their website, I realize it runs on a Linux
derivative. However DOS/Linux, who cares. It still doesn't run "on its
own". It needs disk drivers, display drivers, keyboard drivers and the like
and they have to sit in memory somewhere. Just because they take a Linux
boot sector reader and modify it, it doesn't mean the code isn't there!

And as to my point about memtest not testing all of your memory, and that
you can have a clean bill of health in memtest, but still get Windows
crashes. Well, the memtest people say this:

"By default the test attempts to get the memory size from the BIOS using the
'e820' method. With 'e820' the BIOS provides a table of memory segments and
identifies what they will be used for. By default Memtest86 will test all of
the ram marked as available and also the area reserved for the ACPI tables.
This is safe since the test does not use the ACPI tables and the 'e820'
specifications state that this memory may be reused after the tables have
been copied. **Although this is a safe default some memory will not be
tested.**"

So yes, OK its not "DOS" based. But it does have device drivers and it
makes assumptions about what memory to test and what not to test. These
points I made, and these are correct.

Cheers,

Chip
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 28, 2004 4:03:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:01:08 +0100, Chip wrote:


> OK I got it wrong-ish.
No. You plain don't know what you're talking about. Quite different.
> I had thought that Memtest86 ran on a DOS
> derivative. Having browsed their website, I realize it runs on a Linux
> derivative. However DOS/Linux, who cares. It still doesn't run "on its
> own". It needs disk drivers, display drivers, keyboard drivers and the like
Yes sure. May I see the daemons, the I/O, the scheduler of your supposed
os? Don't be ridiculous.
> So yes, OK its not "DOS" based. But it does have device drivers and it
> makes assumptions about what memory to test and what not to test. These
> points I made, and these are correct.
Again, you don't have a clue on what memtest86 does, and how it does the
memcheck. You don't even know what an os is. But you still waste bandwidth
writing pathetic explanations around.
Do yourself a favour, and read something basic on computing.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 28, 2004 5:58:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:21:54 +0100, Chip wrote:


> I am going to leave this thread now, but please, just be civil to people.

Oohh, I have to be civil. Interesting. Who started insulting people?
Would you be so kind and repeat to all of us who started insulting people
here?
April 28, 2004 7:39:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.04.28.13.58.29.697122@your.house.com...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:21:54 +0100, Chip wrote:
>
>
> > I am going to leave this thread now, but please, just be civil to
people.
>
> Oohh, I have to be civil. Interesting. Who started insulting people?
> Would you be so kind and repeat to all of us who started insulting people
> here?

OK.

26/04/04, You: "You too don't know what you're talking about."

26/04/04, You: "But you still waste bandwidth writing pathetic explanations
around."

28/04/04, You: "Do yourself a favour, and read something basic on
computing."

28/04/04, You: "No. You plain don't know what you're talking about."

4 insults from you, before I lost my rag.

Chip.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 28, 2004 8:16:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:39:41 +0100, Chip wrote:


> 4 insults from you, before I lost my rag.
>
> Chip.
No insults at all. Just advices.
April 28, 2004 9:57:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.04.28.16.16.19.544820@your.house.com...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:39:41 +0100, Chip wrote:
>
>
> > 4 insults from you, before I lost my rag.
> >
> > Chip.
> No insults at all. Just advices.

Let me give you a bit of advice then:

Ginto a bar downtown, find a big muscley guy watching the baseball on the TV
in the corner. Wait until XYZ team hits a home run and the guy calls out
"fantastic".

Then tap him on the shoulder and say:

"You too don't know what you're talking about." Those are the exact words.
But don't worry, they aren't insulting. You'll be OK.

Repeat as necessary. Don't worry, you won't need to repeat yourself four
times!
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 28, 2004 9:57:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:57:43 +0100, Chip wrote:

>
> "The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.04.28.16.16.19.544820@your.house.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:39:41 +0100, Chip wrote:
>>
>>
>> > 4 insults from you, before I lost my rag.
>> >
>> > Chip.
>> No insults at all. Just advices.
>
> Let me give you a bit of advice then:
>
> Ginto a bar downtown, find a big muscley guy watching the baseball on the TV
> in the corner. Wait until XYZ team hits a home run and the guy calls out
> "fantastic".
>
> Then tap him on the shoulder and say:
>
> "You too don't know what you're talking about." Those are the exact words.
> But don't worry, they aren't insulting. You'll be OK.
>
> Repeat as necessary. Don't worry, you won't need to repeat yourself four
> times!
Look, how old are you? 8? 10? Nice. Then go outside and buy yourself a
brain. Second, or third handed, doesn't matter. For you will be a huge
improvement anyway.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 28, 2004 9:57:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

The Real Slim Shady wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:57:43 +0100, Chip wrote:
>
>>
>> "The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
>> news:p an.2004.04.28.16.16.19.544820@your.house.com...
>>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:39:41 +0100, Chip wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 4 insults from you, before I lost my rag.
>>>>
>>>> Chip.
>>> No insults at all. Just advices.
>>
>> Let me give you a bit of advice then:
>>
>> Ginto a bar downtown, find a big muscley guy watching the baseball
>> on the TV in the corner. Wait until XYZ team hits a home run and
>> the guy calls out "fantastic".
>>
>> Then tap him on the shoulder and say:
>>
>> "You too don't know what you're talking about." Those are the exact
>> words. But don't worry, they aren't insulting. You'll be OK.
>>
>> Repeat as necessary. Don't worry, you won't need to repeat yourself
>> four times!
> Look, how old are you? 8? 10? Nice. Then go outside and buy yourself a
> brain. Second, or third handed, doesn't matter. For you will be a
> huge improvement anyway.

Whatever chronological age you might be, mentally you are acting like a
10 year old. Chip said nothing that would cause a normal adult to start
attacking and denigrating him as you have done. Why don't you go over
to _alt.idiots_, where I'm sure you will feel right at home, bozo.
FOAD, LUSER.

*PLONK*
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 28, 2004 9:59:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:52:02 -0400, ICee wrote:


> Whatever chronological age you might be, mentally you are acting like a
> 10 year old. Chip said nothing that would cause a normal adult to start
> attacking and denigrating him as you have done. Why don't you go over
> to _alt.idiots_, where I'm sure you will feel right at home, bozo.
> FOAD, LUSER.
Another kindergarten guest? Learn to spell at least.

But who's this dork, and what has this to do with overclocking?
April 28, 2004 10:41:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.04.28.17.19.20.879135@your.house.com...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:57:43 +0100, Chip wrote:
>
> >
> > "The Real Slim Shady" <Stan@your.house.com> wrote in message
> > news:p an.2004.04.28.16.16.19.544820@your.house.com...
> >> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:39:41 +0100, Chip wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > 4 insults from you, before I lost my rag.
> >> >
> >> > Chip.
> >> No insults at all. Just advices.
> >
> > Let me give you a bit of advice then:
> >
> > Ginto a bar downtown, find a big muscley guy watching the baseball on
the TV
> > in the corner. Wait until XYZ team hits a home run and the guy calls
out
> > "fantastic".
> >
> > Then tap him on the shoulder and say:
> >
> > "You too don't know what you're talking about." Those are the exact
words.
> > But don't worry, they aren't insulting. You'll be OK.
> >
> > Repeat as necessary. Don't worry, you won't need to repeat yourself
four
> > times!
> Look, how old are you? 8? 10? Nice. Then go outside and buy yourself a
> brain. Second, or third handed, doesn't matter. For you will be a huge
> improvement anyway.

You really do have an inferiority complex don't you. Quite sad.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
April 28, 2004 10:41:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:41:39 +0100, Chip wrote:


>> Look, how old are you? 8? 10? Nice. Then go outside and buy yourself a
>> brain. Second, or third handed, doesn't matter. For you will be a huge
>> improvement anyway.
>
> You really do have an inferiority complex don't you. Quite sad.

Wow! Your third hand brain works. What an improvement! Now you can start
talking like a real human being. Excellent.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
May 1, 2004 5:59:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

Chip wrote:
> Will Dormann wrote:
>> Chip wrote:
>>> The Real Slim Shady wrote:
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>> You too don't know what you're talking about. No dos, no windows,
>>>> no os/2, no VMS, no UNICOS. Nothing but an excellent memtest.
>>>> Running another tester that needs an os is a waste of time. But
>>>> it's too long to explain you why.
>>>
>>> So, memtest just runs "on its own" does it?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> Didn't you stop to think how does memtest actually display anything
>>> on screen? Or take input from your keyboard? Do you think the
>>> memtest authors decided to write all their own device drivers, just
>>> for the hell of it? Well I can tell you, they didn't.
>>
>> You seem pretty sure of yourself, Chip. But you're quite wrong.
>> memtest86 does not run on DOS. Just because you see text on the
>> screen, that in no way means that it's DOS.
>>
>> Some of the memtest86 code is based on the Linux 1.2.1 kernel, but it
>> indeed does not run "on top" of any OS. Saying that memtest86
>> isn't that great because it misses areas of memory used by Windows
>> because it is DOS-based is completely ridiculous.
>
> OK I got it wrong-ish. I had thought that Memtest86 ran on a DOS
> derivative. Having browsed their website, I realize it runs on a
> Linux derivative. However DOS/Linux, who cares. It still doesn't
> run "on its own". It needs disk drivers

Nope, uses the BIOS floppy calls (doesn't need to do floppy access once in
protected mode).

> display drivers

Nope, uses the BIOS video calls to set up the screen while in real mode, and
uses the old fashoned 0xB800 segment to display stuff in protected mode.

> keyboard drivers

~20 lines of code can hardly be called a keyboard driver ... it just polls
the two main keyboard I/O ports to see if a key has been pressed.

> and the like and they have to sit in memory somewhere. Just
> because they take a Linux boot sector reader and modify it, it
> doesn't mean the code isn't there!

It depends what you classify as an OS. The only code taken from Linux is the
boot sector, the memory size-detection code (some of it, anyhow), and the
code to kick it into protected mode. Everything else is the memtest86
program itself. I personally wouldn't call a boot sector and protected-mode
entry code an OS since it's not used after the boot-up sequence, but your
standards may differ.

> And as to my point about memtest not testing all of your memory, and
> that you can have a clean bill of health in memtest, but still get
> Windows crashes. Well, the memtest people say this:
>
> "By default the test attempts to get the memory size from the BIOS
> using the 'e820' method. With 'e820' the BIOS provides a table of
> memory segments and identifies what they will be used for. By default
> Memtest86 will test all of the ram marked as available and also the
> area reserved for the ACPI tables. This is safe since the test does
> not use the ACPI tables and the 'e820' specifications state that this
> memory may be reused after the tables have been copied. **Although
> this is a safe default some memory will not be tested.**"

The types of memory that can be specified through e820 are:
01: memory, available to OS
02: reserved, not available (e.g. system ROM, memory-mapped device)
03: ACPI Reclaim Memory (usable by OS after reading ACPI tables)
04: ACPI NVS Memory (OS is required to save this memory between NVS
sessions)
other (00 and 05-FF): not defined yet -- treat as Reserved
Memtest86 tests regions marked 01 and 03. If Windows is using regions marked
02 and 04, I would be EXTREMELY worried. As long as memtest86 is reporting
the same amount of memory available as Windows, then it'll be testing
exactly the same parts that Windows uses (Windows NT kernels since 3.1 use
E820 as the primary method of memory-size detection).

> So yes, OK its not "DOS" based. But it does have device drivers

Nope (read the source code :)  ).

> and
> it makes assumptions about what memory to test

Sorta ... it assumes that trying to write to ROMs ain't gonna work, which is
fair enough IMO (every OS I know makes this assumption as well).

> and what not to test.
> These points I made, and these are correct.

One incorrect, one correct on a technicality that's not applicable to the
situation at hand :) 


In my experience, if Memtest86 passes but Windows still has stability
issues, then the problem is either the power supply/voltage regulators, the
CPU, or the northbridge. The middle case can (on AMD CPUs) be identified by
reducing the multiplier. This is the most probably case. The middle case can
be identified by putting in higher-spec RAM, cooling the northbridge better,
or increasing the northbridge voltage. Unless you're really pushing the
chipset, this is unlikely to be a problem though. The remaining case is
quite interesting. When you're runing memtest86, the power usage is very
stable. It's doing the exact same thing over and over again, and nothing is
changing (except when it changes tests). This means that the voltage
regulators (both in the PUS and on the board) have a very easy job as long
as they can supply sufficient power. With a fluctuating load, you tend to
get a fluctuating "regulated" voltage in the opposite direction to what you
want: when you have a load spike, the voltage dips down briefly until the
regulator compensates for it. So your chip will (for a brief moment) be
running at the higher load with a lower voltage = not good for stability.

Under Windows, you have a very variable load. You have timers firing off all
the time, interrupts getting serviced (memtest86 runs with most interrupts
turned off), disk activity, etc etc. As well as that, Windows tends to push
the rests of the system (CPU, video card, disk drives) a lot harder than
memtest86 (which only really pushes the memory). So the regulators have to
supply more power to a more fluctuating load. Consequently, the voltage
regulators have a difficult job keeping the lines stable and you can end up
with voltage dips happening at annoying times. So although the every part of
the system may be stable under a continuous load with the rest of the system
idle, when you put everything together and throw the power requirements all
over the place, it becomes unstable if anything is being pushed near to its
limit.

So, what's the solution? As usual, increase the voltage :)  Depending on
what's failing, you'll need to increade the RAM, CPU, or chipset voltage, or
try a better PSU if that's the thing having problems. It's a bit annoying
having to run things at a higher voltage than what they need, but until
someone comes up with a much better voltage regulator, these problems are
here to stay.

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
May 1, 2004 5:59:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

Thanks Michael for a very thorough explanation of how memtest86 works.

"Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
news:JwDkc.352$8J.20415@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Chip wrote:
> > Will Dormann wrote:
> >> Chip wrote:
> >>> The Real Slim Shady wrote:
> >>>> Nonsense.
> >>>> You too don't know what you're talking about. No dos, no windows,
> >>>> no os/2, no VMS, no UNICOS. Nothing but an excellent memtest.
> >>>> Running another tester that needs an os is a waste of time. But
> >>>> it's too long to explain you why.
> >>>
> >>> So, memtest just runs "on its own" does it?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >>> Didn't you stop to think how does memtest actually display anything
> >>> on screen? Or take input from your keyboard? Do you think the
> >>> memtest authors decided to write all their own device drivers, just
> >>> for the hell of it? Well I can tell you, they didn't.
> >>
> >> You seem pretty sure of yourself, Chip. But you're quite wrong.
> >> memtest86 does not run on DOS. Just because you see text on the
> >> screen, that in no way means that it's DOS.
> >>
> >> Some of the memtest86 code is based on the Linux 1.2.1 kernel, but it
> >> indeed does not run "on top" of any OS. Saying that memtest86
> >> isn't that great because it misses areas of memory used by Windows
> >> because it is DOS-based is completely ridiculous.
> >
> > OK I got it wrong-ish. I had thought that Memtest86 ran on a DOS
> > derivative. Having browsed their website, I realize it runs on a
> > Linux derivative. However DOS/Linux, who cares. It still doesn't
> > run "on its own". It needs disk drivers
>
> Nope, uses the BIOS floppy calls (doesn't need to do floppy access once in
> protected mode).
>
> > display drivers
>
> Nope, uses the BIOS video calls to set up the screen while in real mode,
and
> uses the old fashoned 0xB800 segment to display stuff in protected mode.
>
> > keyboard drivers
>
> ~20 lines of code can hardly be called a keyboard driver ... it just polls
> the two main keyboard I/O ports to see if a key has been pressed.
>
> > and the like and they have to sit in memory somewhere. Just
> > because they take a Linux boot sector reader and modify it, it
> > doesn't mean the code isn't there!
>
> It depends what you classify as an OS. The only code taken from Linux is
the
> boot sector, the memory size-detection code (some of it, anyhow), and the
> code to kick it into protected mode. Everything else is the memtest86
> program itself. I personally wouldn't call a boot sector and
protected-mode
> entry code an OS since it's not used after the boot-up sequence, but your
> standards may differ.
>
> > And as to my point about memtest not testing all of your memory, and
> > that you can have a clean bill of health in memtest, but still get
> > Windows crashes. Well, the memtest people say this:
> >
> > "By default the test attempts to get the memory size from the BIOS
> > using the 'e820' method. With 'e820' the BIOS provides a table of
> > memory segments and identifies what they will be used for. By default
> > Memtest86 will test all of the ram marked as available and also the
> > area reserved for the ACPI tables. This is safe since the test does
> > not use the ACPI tables and the 'e820' specifications state that this
> > memory may be reused after the tables have been copied. **Although
> > this is a safe default some memory will not be tested.**"
>
> The types of memory that can be specified through e820 are:
> 01: memory, available to OS
> 02: reserved, not available (e.g. system ROM, memory-mapped device)
> 03: ACPI Reclaim Memory (usable by OS after reading ACPI tables)
> 04: ACPI NVS Memory (OS is required to save this memory between NVS
> sessions)
> other (00 and 05-FF): not defined yet -- treat as Reserved
> Memtest86 tests regions marked 01 and 03. If Windows is using regions
marked
> 02 and 04, I would be EXTREMELY worried. As long as memtest86 is reporting
> the same amount of memory available as Windows, then it'll be testing
> exactly the same parts that Windows uses (Windows NT kernels since 3.1 use
> E820 as the primary method of memory-size detection).
>
> > So yes, OK its not "DOS" based. But it does have device drivers
>
> Nope (read the source code :)  ).
>
> > and
> > it makes assumptions about what memory to test
>
> Sorta ... it assumes that trying to write to ROMs ain't gonna work, which
is
> fair enough IMO (every OS I know makes this assumption as well).
>
> > and what not to test.
> > These points I made, and these are correct.
>
> One incorrect, one correct on a technicality that's not applicable to the
> situation at hand :) 
>
>
> In my experience, if Memtest86 passes but Windows still has stability
> issues, then the problem is either the power supply/voltage regulators,
the
> CPU, or the northbridge. The middle case can (on AMD CPUs) be identified
by
> reducing the multiplier. This is the most probably case. The middle case
can
> be identified by putting in higher-spec RAM, cooling the northbridge
better,
> or increasing the northbridge voltage. Unless you're really pushing the
> chipset, this is unlikely to be a problem though. The remaining case is
> quite interesting. When you're runing memtest86, the power usage is very
> stable. It's doing the exact same thing over and over again, and nothing
is
> changing (except when it changes tests). This means that the voltage
> regulators (both in the PUS and on the board) have a very easy job as long
> as they can supply sufficient power. With a fluctuating load, you tend to
> get a fluctuating "regulated" voltage in the opposite direction to what
you
> want: when you have a load spike, the voltage dips down briefly until the
> regulator compensates for it. So your chip will (for a brief moment) be
> running at the higher load with a lower voltage = not good for stability.
>
> Under Windows, you have a very variable load. You have timers firing off
all
> the time, interrupts getting serviced (memtest86 runs with most interrupts
> turned off), disk activity, etc etc. As well as that, Windows tends to
push
> the rests of the system (CPU, video card, disk drives) a lot harder than
> memtest86 (which only really pushes the memory). So the regulators have to
> supply more power to a more fluctuating load. Consequently, the voltage
> regulators have a difficult job keeping the lines stable and you can end
up
> with voltage dips happening at annoying times. So although the every part
of
> the system may be stable under a continuous load with the rest of the
system
> idle, when you put everything together and throw the power requirements
all
> over the place, it becomes unstable if anything is being pushed near to
its
> limit.
>
> So, what's the solution? As usual, increase the voltage :)  Depending on
> what's failing, you'll need to increade the RAM, CPU, or chipset voltage,
or
> try a better PSU if that's the thing having problems. It's a bit annoying
> having to run things at a higher voltage than what they need, but until
> someone comes up with a much better voltage regulator, these problems are
> here to stay.
>
> --
> Michael Brown
> www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
> Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
>
>
!