New machine - problem

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I built a new machine today for my webserver. Processor specs are
AMD Sempron 2300+ Socket A Processor
Processor Speed: SP 2300+ / 1.58GHz
I put in 512 Mb of ram (DDR 2700).
I took the two hard drives out of my old machine and put them in and let it
do its thing. It finally got all the device drivers right, along with
installing the drivers off the motherboard CD. It's Windows 98 SE. It
really went well and it runs like lightning so I put it back in service.
After about an hour, I was looking at some files with Windows Explorer, and
I got a BSOD saying "error reading drive C:". I pressed a key and it came
out of it. When I tried to run ScanDisk it just hung up. I finally
rebooted, and after the reboot, everything was A-OK again. I ran ScanDisk
on all 7 logical drives and there wasn't an error on any of them. I have a
little program called CPUID that I ran on it and it says the processor is
running at 1266 Mhz. According the the specs, I was expecting to see 1580
Mhz. WinTop is showing the idle process at around 95% which sounds good to
me.
So... two questions.
Why the crash? If it did it once, it's probably going to do it again.
Why the slower than specs processor speed?

--
--- A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother. ---

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Forget scandisk for this....run the diagnostics for your brand of hard drive.
If you don't know what brand the drive is, you can download the limited-use free
edition of OnTrack Data Advisor from this location:
http://www.ontrack.com/freesoftware/#dataadvisor

When you click the download link on that page for Data Advisor 5.0 Free edition, you
will be taken to a page to register with the OnTrack site, then you will be able to
download the diskette creator file.

The downloads are diskette creators. They are to be run once from a working Windows
system and will guide you through the process of extracting the Data Advisor onto a
3.5" floppy disk.

Download and Use Instructions:
http://www.ontrack.com/dataadvisor/downloadinfo.asp

As far as I know, Maxtor's diagnostics will also work with any brand of drive.

Hard Drive Diagnostic Programs by Vendor:

OnTrack Data Advisor:
http://www.ontrack.com/freesoftware/#dataadvisor
IBM/Hitachi Drive Fitness Test:
http://www.hgst.com/hdd/support/download.htm
Western Digital Data Lifeguard Tools:
http://support.wdc.com/download/
Quantum/Maxtor PowerMax:
http://www.maxtor.com/en/support/downloads/powermax.htm
Seagate SeaTools:
http://www.seagate.com/support/seatools/index.html
Download:
http://www.seagate.com/support/seatools/B7a.html
http://www.seagate.com/support/seatools/seatoold_reg.html
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Menno Hershberger" <mhersh22@nosuchplace.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9624E14E122A3butter@daisymae.com...
> I built a new machine today for my webserver. Processor specs are
> AMD Sempron 2300+ Socket A Processor
> Processor Speed: SP 2300+ / 1.58GHz
> I put in 512 Mb of ram (DDR 2700).
> I took the two hard drives out of my old machine and put them in and let it
> do its thing. It finally got all the device drivers right, along with
> installing the drivers off the motherboard CD. It's Windows 98 SE. It
> really went well and it runs like lightning so I put it back in service.
> After about an hour, I was looking at some files with Windows Explorer, and
> I got a BSOD saying "error reading drive C:". I pressed a key and it came
> out of it. When I tried to run ScanDisk it just hung up. I finally
> rebooted, and after the reboot, everything was A-OK again. I ran ScanDisk
> on all 7 logical drives and there wasn't an error on any of them. I have a
> little program called CPUID that I ran on it and it says the processor is
> running at 1266 Mhz. According the the specs, I was expecting to see 1580
> Mhz. WinTop is showing the idle process at around 95% which sounds good to
> me.
> So... two questions.
> Why the crash? If it did it once, it's probably going to do it again.
> Why the slower than specs processor speed?
>
> --
> --- A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother. ---

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

They're both Western Digital and I have a diagnostic disk for them. The
weird thing is that I was running scandisk on Drive D when it locked up.
And the errors were for drive C. D is a different physical drive. Both of
them were doing fine this morning. Maybe I jiggled one out when I put them
in the new machine. At the moment, everything seems to be OK. I'm going to
wait till tomorrow and check eveything out. Which means I'll have to switch
everything back over to another machine while I check it out. I got more
hard drives sitting around if I need them.
Thanks for the suggestion.

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in
news:O$Tk$9bMFHA.1156@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:

> Forget scandisk for this....run the diagnostics for your brand of hard
> drive. If you don't know what brand the drive is, you can download the
> limited-use free edition of OnTrack Data Advisor from this location:
> http://www.ontrack.com/freesoftware/#dataadvisor

 

[galen]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

In news:Xns9624E14E122A3butter@daisymae.com,
Menno Hershberger <mhersh22@nosuchplace.net> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> Why the slower than specs processor speed?

Check CMOS settings (or BIOS if you'd rather I use that term) to see if it's
running at 266, 333, or 400... PC2700 should run at 333 IIRC though I don't
know if your CPU supports that. It probably does. Check there and see...
Load Optimal defaults and start from there?

Oh, as an aside, screaming server for 98 Nice CPU choice for it as well
more so considering the price these days of said chip.

Galen
--
Signature changed for a moment of silence.
Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I see that the hard drive issue has been addressed so I'll stick to the
processor issue. This is a marketing tactic being used by AMD - their
processors aren't sold by actual clock speed but by a speed rating that AMD
says compares to an Intel Pentium 4 processor. Their testing showed that
their Athlon XP processor running at 1833mHz performed at the same level as
a Pentium 4 2400mHz processor so the processor is sold as an "AMD Athlon XP
2400+" processor even though that isn't the actual clock speed.

Intel used to bash AMD for this tactic - but now Intel processors are sold
with an arbitrary performance rating rather than their actual clock speed
and Intel admits that clock speed is not necessarily a valid predictor of
processor performance.

Go figure.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* In fond memory ... Alex, you shall be sorely missed
* http://www.aumha.org/alex.htm



"Menno Hershberger" <mhersh22@nosuchplace.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9624E14E122A3butter@daisymae.com...
>I built a new machine today for my webserver. Processor specs are
> AMD Sempron 2300+ Socket A Processor
> Processor Speed: SP 2300+ / 1.58GHz
> I put in 512 Mb of ram (DDR 2700).
> I took the two hard drives out of my old machine and put them in and let
> it
> do its thing. It finally got all the device drivers right, along with
> installing the drivers off the motherboard CD. It's Windows 98 SE. It
> really went well and it runs like lightning so I put it back in service.
> After about an hour, I was looking at some files with Windows Explorer,
> and
> I got a BSOD saying "error reading drive C:". I pressed a key and it came
> out of it. When I tried to run ScanDisk it just hung up. I finally
> rebooted, and after the reboot, everything was A-OK again. I ran ScanDisk
> on all 7 logical drives and there wasn't an error on any of them. I have a
> little program called CPUID that I ran on it and it says the processor is
> running at 1266 Mhz. According the the specs, I was expecting to see 1580
> Mhz. WinTop is showing the idle process at around 95% which sounds good to
> me.
> So... two questions.
> Why the crash? If it did it once, it's probably going to do it again.
> Why the slower than specs processor speed?
>
> --
> --- A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother. ---

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Well, in the end, I didn't need any of that. I got up this morning to
"click click click click..." That's pretty good diagnostics in itself. So
I've replaced the drive... no problem with lost data since I keep two
machines "ready" all the time. While I had it back on the bench I RTFM
again and found a jumper that was wrong. That took care of the processor
speed problem... it's up to 1.583 (as advertised). There had been a note
from the supplier that the jumpers were configured properly before it was
shipped.
Go configure...

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in
news:O$Tk$9bMFHA.1156@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:

> Forget scandisk for this....run the diagnostics for your brand of hard
> drive. If you don't know what brand the drive is, you can download the
> limited-use free edition of OnTrack Data Advisor from this location:
> http://www.ontrack.com/freesoftware/#dataadvisor
>
> When you click the download link on that page for Data Advisor 5.0
> Free edition, you will be taken to a page to register with the OnTrack
> site, then you will be able to download the diskette creator file.
>
> The downloads are diskette creators. They are to be run once from a
> working Windows system and will guide you through the process of
> extracting the Data Advisor onto a 3.5" floppy disk.
>
> Download and Use Instructions:
> http://www.ontrack.com/dataadvisor/downloadinfo.asp
>
> As far as I know, Maxtor's diagnostics will also work with any brand
> of drive.
>
> Hard Drive Diagnostic Programs by Vendor:
>
> OnTrack Data Advisor:
> http://www.ontrack.com/freesoftware/#dataadvisor
> IBM/Hitachi Drive Fitness Test:
> http://www.hgst.com/hdd/support/download.htm
> Western Digital Data Lifeguard Tools:
> http://support.wdc.com/download/
> Quantum/Maxtor PowerMax:
> http://www.maxtor.com/en/support/downloads/powermax.htm
> Seagate SeaTools:
> http://www.seagate.com/support/seatools/index.html
> Download:
> http://www.seagate.com/support/seatools/B7a.html
> http://www.seagate.com/support/seatools/seatoold_reg.html



--
--- A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother. ---

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Galen" <galennews@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e7V#CRcMFHA.1436@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:

> In news:Xns9624E14E122A3butter@daisymae.com,
> Menno Hershberger <mhersh22@nosuchplace.net> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> Why the slower than specs processor speed?
>
> Check CMOS settings (or BIOS if you'd rather I use that term) to see
> if it's running at 266, 333, or 400... PC2700 should run at 333 IIRC
> though I don't know if your CPU supports that. It probably does. Check
> there and see... Load Optimal defaults and start from there?
>
> Oh, as an aside, screaming server for 98 Nice CPU choice for it as
> well more so considering the price these days of said chip.

Well, it was more being "cheap" than it was being "smart".
As mentioned in another reply, I read the manual again and there was a
jumper set wrong. FSB was set at 200 and ahould have been 166. Hell, 200
isn't even a valid setting for that particular model of motherboard.
Anyway, that put it back up to 1.583 like it's supposed to be.
Thanks for your suggestions!

--
--- A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother. ---

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in
news:eO#hZXfMFHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:

> I see that the hard drive issue has been addressed so I'll stick to
> the processor issue. This is a marketing tactic being used by AMD -
> their processors aren't sold by actual clock speed but by a speed
> rating that AMD says compares to an Intel Pentium 4 processor. Their
> testing showed that their Athlon XP processor running at 1833mHz
> performed at the same level as a Pentium 4 2400mHz processor so the
> processor is sold as an "AMD Athlon XP 2400+" processor even though
> that isn't the actual clock speed.
>
> Intel used to bash AMD for this tactic - but now Intel processors are
> sold with an arbitrary performance rating rather than their actual
> clock speed and Intel admits that clock speed is not necessarily a
> valid predictor of processor performance.

I'm running an AMD Athlon XP 2400+ on this machine. It runs at 2 gigs.
Actually 1.999. So I'm only short a hertz... Or would that be a kHz?
Anyway, it's fast enough to suit me...
As you can see from my other posts, both problems have been resolved.
Thanks to all of you!

--
--- A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother. ---

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I guess there's more than one way to keep up with Moore's law..


"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message news:eO%23hZXfMFHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Intel used to bash AMD for this tactic - but now Intel processors are sold with an arbitrary performance rating rather than their
> actual clock speed and Intel admits that clock speed is not necessarily a valid predictor of processor performance.
>
> Go figure.
>