Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (
More info?)
"Ken" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message news:FyUyd.27211
<trimmed here and there>
> Well, my great experiment has been completed on my neighbor's computer.
> It ran flawlessly several times with the same DocMem software I had
> been trying to run. I am not sure what brand or model of MB he had, but
> all I was after was to establish if the memory failure was due to my MB
> or not. Since I know it is good, I shall simply keep it for my next
> computer since it really was bought with that purpose in mind.
I have that same drawer in my PC parts bin. "Future RAM" I wonder how much
512MB would cost in 1984 and 1994 dollars? You're still ahead of that game!
I find that I often buy things like video cards knowing full well I'll have
to buy a new MB and CPU to realize its full glory. It's actually remarkable
when compared to TV sets that as much PC HW is as interchangeable as it is.
These fringe incompatibilities are to be expected, as you've already noted.
> > That doesn't surprise me. If it's density-related, speed wouldn't be as
> > much as issue as not "seeing" the expected memory chip configuration.
>
> I would have thought that a density problem would have presented itself
> with a consistent type failure, but it did not. As I stated, I had seen
> the high density factor show up as recognizing only half of the memory
> size, but did not expect to see it as a failure at some point past the
> middle of the total capacity. Another factor that perhaps I did not
> make clear in my text, is that the chip size (pins on the ICs) and the
> number of them on a single side of the 256 sticks are the same as those
> on the double sided 512 stick. If the density were different, one would
> have thought that the physical size of the ICs or the number of them on
> a single side of the 512 stick would have been different. I suppose the
> internal structure of those ICs could be different with regard to
> accessing them (sort of like the interleaving method on old RAM), but I
> will never know.
There may be a pattern to the failure mode but it would take a lot more than
two sets of anectdotal readings to establish it. (-: My 512 stick was a
single sided module and it counted up to double the actual capacity before
it failed. The odd dual format memory of the K7S5A probably causes them to
fail in a pattern not seen on other machines. This is what's nice about
PC's. If you own enough of them you can swap parts until they all work.
Mostly.
> At any rate, I do have an answer as to whether the memory was defective
> or not and that is good. One more thing to put in my memory bank of
> possible causes of computer failures for the future.
That's valuable information even though it's not the solution you wanted. I
assume others reading the thread have filed it away as well so some good has
come out of the experience. Future RAM.
> >>If it was not for the fact that one
> >>of the working sticks was a Kingston Value Ram rated at PC2700,
> >
> >
> > But that working stick was lower density than the one that wouldn't
work,
> > correct?
>
> Possibly. As I explained above, based upon the physical number of ICs
> and their appearance, I am not sure. If the chips are internally
> different, then their physical appearance would not mean anything.
I see what you're saying. They appear to be of the same density, but the
stick that fails is populated with twice as many as the one that works.
That's a higher density *stick* but not using a higher density chip. (-: I
think both the "sidedness" as well as the number of chips and their density
all come into play. I suspect that even between identically spec'ed sticks
from different vendors there will be serious internal differences.
> > I've always used the cheapest RAM I can find and have NEVER run into the
> > myriad problems that are always attributed to cheap RAM. Of course, I'm
not
> > an overclocker so I am not pushing the rarely-pushable envelope of cheap
> > RAM. I burn in machines for days with MemTest and periodically retest
them.
> > No problems. But I'm never on the leading edge of technology either,
and I
> > suspect that the newest RAM always has the most bugs and it's up to the
> > leading edge guys to work out all the incompatibilities. By the time
I'm
> > buying RAM, it's been out on the market and probably close to the end of
> > production life cycle. And, apologies to Dana Carvey's "Grumpy Old
Man" -
> > we LIKE it that way!
>
> You and I sound alike. I am not into having the latest equipment, just
> something to do what I need it to do. Eventually my curiosity takes
> over and I upgrade just to see what others are talking about.
I like the bleeding edge of technology - buy only if someone else is paying
the bill. When I see people paying $1,000 for a CPU I know they love this
stuff a lot more than I do! But I am glad they are willing to spend the
money because I know by the time I get around to buying that sort of speed,
they will have worked out the kinks.
> By then,
> there is plenty of material to read about what to buy, where to buy it,
> and how to use it. As you said, let others work out all the bugs!
I remember being on the bleeding edge with a Tyan Tomcat using dual
processors. Buckets and buckets of blood spilled on that one. Ended up in
a lawsuit! But that's another story . . .
In general, though, I am in awe of the overclockers. They are usually the
ones that keep the boardmakers in line by determining where all the
incompatibilities and "should have beens" lie. They take plenty of arrows
in the back because of their pioneering ways. Arrows I'd rather live
without. It's also pretty plain to me that now beta testing is done in the
field and many manufacturers expect people to pay for the privilege. I
figure for a true market economy to work, you have to stick to working with
survivors that have passed the test of time. ECS was a pleasant surprise in
how much *bang* I could get for the buck and so far, there have been no
regrets (knock on wood). Not so Gigabyte, Tyan and Abit.
> I haven't gotten into digital photography yet. It is a little
> overwhelming in the number of cameras and their features. From what I
> have read, I think I would like to get a camera with a better lens than
> the typical X3 optical magnification. Since they are dropping in price
> and there are so many posting their opinions, I shall sit and wait a
> while longer. Too cheap I guess??
I dunno. I think for Joe and Jane Average, 3 megapixels and 3 to 1 zoom are
more than adequate. The larger the zoom, the less compact the camera. The
unit I use takes 3.2 megapixel stills and fairly decent video without any
moving parts (fixed focus lens - definitely a bummer but a zoom would add
motors and gears). I got it to give to a relative on their way FAR north
where I thought that no moving parts would mean better longevity. It
records over two hours on a postage stamp-sized 1GB SD card, which is a
miracle in itself. Easy to mail. The viewfinder flips and automatically
inverts the image so you can talk into the camera and see yourself. It's
great for video letters to home from faraway places. Small, too. About the
size of two packs of cigarettes. Memory runs out long before batteries,
too.
> Finally, I want to say I have enjoyed the on-going discussion we have
> had. Too often there are people who know more than the person posing
> the question and instead of contributing and learning themselves, seem
> to enjoy ridiculing the posters. I guess they need to show they are
> smarter than everyone else? It is nice to have a civil conversation
> about a topic with none of that. Thanks again.
You're quite welcome. Usenet reminds me why the world always seems to be at
war despite a preponderance of peaceful people. It only takes one bad
apple, as the saying goes. I also think the more insecure a person is about
their skill level the more determined they are to demonstrate that
insecurity by ridiculing others. Every so often, the ridicule is
well-earned "No, numbnuts, you can't make DDR RAM into PC SDRAM by cutting
an extra notch with a metal file!" However, I agree: there's often a "look
at how smart I am" (and how socially maladroit) element to it. Even Merlin
said "there's always *someone* cleverer than yourself" so this problem has
been with us at least a 1000 years. (-: Fortunately the "perfect" posters
are easy to spot and easy to ignore.
Good luck with your "Future RAM!" (Take heart in the fact that my FR drawer
finally ran empty and managed to save a buddy's kid's final paper in
psychology. They had had a bad RAM chip in their machine for years and when
his daughter's Word doc got large enough to hit the bad spot, BSOD! I stuck
in the MemTest+ floppy, found errors and told them they were lucky I had one
PC133 128MB module left in the bin for a late Sunday night swap out. I
gotta tell you, those are the times that make all this futzing with PC's
worth it. Hero of the day! I guess it's time to scan for rebates to
replenish the stash!)
Eric W.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram