Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

I have the above MB and currently have two sticks of 256MB PC2700 DDR
installed in it. One stick is Kingston Value Ram and the other is a
Nanya stick. The computer is solid as a rock running with an Athlon 2200+.

I just purchased a single stick of 512MB Kingston Value Ram (also
PC2700), and installed it alone in the MB. It recognized the full 512
MB upon boot. After encountering many errors I finally tested the new
DDR with DocMem 2.2 and it detected errors at about 256MB. Thinking I
had purchased a bad stick, I exchanged it for another like it and found
I encountered the same type of error with the DocMem test.

After having searched the news groups for comments about Kingston DDR
and this MB, I found no comments critical of it, but I did find a poster
ask someone who was having problem with DDR if he had double sided DDR?
Is there a problem with DDR with chips on both sides with this MB? I
tried loosening the settings in CMOS to see if that would allow the DDR
to work, but it did not work. I even slowed the settings down to 100 +
100 rather than 133 + 133 and it still failed test. Since PC2700 is
faster than a 133 FSB setting requires, I would have thought it would
have run easily.

Anyone have some insight on using such RAM on this MB? Thanks.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

"Ken" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:EuHxd.14131$uM5.5692@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I have the above MB and currently have two sticks of 256MB PC2700 DDR
> installed in it. One stick is Kingston Value Ram and the other is a
> Nanya stick. The computer is solid as a rock running with an Athlon
2200+.
>
> I just purchased a single stick of 512MB Kingston Value Ram (also
> PC2700), and installed it alone in the MB. It recognized the full 512
> MB upon boot. After encountering many errors I finally tested the new
> DDR with DocMem 2.2 and it detected errors at about 256MB. Thinking I
> had purchased a bad stick, I exchanged it for another like it and found
> I encountered the same type of error with the DocMem test.

I had precisely the same problem with the same board after a similar
upgrade. MemTest+ was showing errors at the halfway point. The solution,
for me at least, was simple: I moved the 512 RAM stick (it was el cheapo
$29 RAM from Outpost) to the other DDR slot (the second one, if memory
serves) and no errors whatsoever on MemTest+ plus. I put some electrical
tape and a note to myself on the first slot to remind me why I had the RAM
in the second slot lest I forget several years from now. The PC has been
running fine ever since.

Eric

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

Eric Wolfe wrote:
> "Ken" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> news:EuHxd.14131$uM5.5692@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>I have the above MB and currently have two sticks of 256MB PC2700 DDR
>>installed in it. One stick is Kingston Value Ram and the other is a
>>Nanya stick. The computer is solid as a rock running with an Athlon
>
> 2200+.
>
>>I just purchased a single stick of 512MB Kingston Value Ram (also
>>PC2700), and installed it alone in the MB. It recognized the full 512
>>MB upon boot. After encountering many errors I finally tested the new
>>DDR with DocMem 2.2 and it detected errors at about 256MB. Thinking I
>>had purchased a bad stick, I exchanged it for another like it and found
>>I encountered the same type of error with the DocMem test.
>
>
> I had precisely the same problem with the same board after a similar
> upgrade. MemTest+ was showing errors at the halfway point. The solution,
> for me at least, was simple: I moved the 512 RAM stick (it was el cheapo
> $29 RAM from Outpost) to the other DDR slot (the second one, if memory
> serves) and no errors whatsoever on MemTest+ plus. I put some electrical
> tape and a note to myself on the first slot to remind me why I had the RAM
> in the second slot lest I forget several years from now. The PC has been
> running fine ever since.
>
> Eric
>
>
Eric,

Thanks for your reply. I tried testing the 512 stick in the other DDR
slot and the same type of error occurs. I even tried it in addition to
leaving one of the 256 sticks in as well, for 768 MB. Again the error
occurred and at the same approximate location.

In addition, I flashed my bios with the latest Honey Bios, 030811
just to see if that helped. Although the computer runs better after the
flash, there is no improvement with the suspect DDR. I tried several
memory settings and different speeds, all the way down to 100 + 100.
Currently I am running 138 + 138 with the old DDR and it works great.

Last night I asked one of my neighbors if I could test out the DDR in
question on his MB. I intend to do that soon. He suggested it sounded
like a defective stick of DDR, and I would agree if it were not the same
type of failure as had occurred on the first stick I bought. Certainly
it is possible, but to have the same defective location in two separate
sticks of memory seems very unlikely. I will post the results after I
test it on his machine.

I would be convinced that it was a brand/quality problem if it were not
for having a 256 MB stick of the same speed and brand, and that piece
works perfectly! You have got to love computers.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

"Ken" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message news:3IZxd.17183

> Thanks for your reply. I tried testing the 512 stick in the other DDR
> slot and the same type of error occurs. I even tried it in addition to
> leaving one of the 256 sticks in as well, for 768 MB. Again the error
> occurred and at the same approximate location.

Well - so much for that theory. I wasn't comfortable with running from the
second memory slot but as your situation points out, that's better than not
running!

> In addition, I flashed my bios with the latest Honey Bios, 030811
> just to see if that helped. Although the computer runs better after the
> flash, there is no improvement with the suspect DDR. I tried several
> memory settings and different speeds, all the way down to 100 + 100.
> Currently I am running 138 + 138 with the old DDR and it works great.
>
> Last night I asked one of my neighbors if I could test out the DDR in
> question on his MB. I intend to do that soon.

That's true friendship!

> He suggested it sounded
> like a defective stick of DDR, and I would agree if it were not the same
> type of failure as had occurred on the first stick I bought. Certainly
> it is possible, but to have the same defective location in two separate
> sticks of memory seems very unlikely. I will post the results after I
> test it on his machine.

Lots of MB's have issues with high density RAM. What are the chip counts on
the respective sticks? I am assuming the new RAM has either the same number
of chips or fewer than its lower capacity counterpart.

> I would be convinced that it was a brand/quality problem if it were not
> for having a 256 MB stick of the same speed and brand, and that piece
> works perfectly! You have got to love computers.

If your neighbor has a MB made in the last year or so, it should be able to
run your RAM with no problems if the density theory is correct. If it's
older, it could easily evidence the same problem. One of the reasons I
bought the el cheapo DDR RAM was that I had purchased some similarly cheap
PC133 RAM to upgrade an old Asus P5A but that MB was too old to see a single
hi-density RAM stick. What I divined from Google was that no BIOS upgrade
could fix it. It was a hard-wired "feature." The machine counted up to 1GB
in the POST before it locked up, clearly a sign it was choking on the
hi-density 512MB RAM.

I just bought a 1GB SD card and am having the same fun. The digital card
reader sees 1GB but considers itself full after 127 files and 447MB. Yet
the DVR camera and the MP3 player both see the 1GB correctly and the camera
can fill out the space that the card reader refused to. But the DVR writes
in some bizarre ASF format that I can't seem to find a codec for . . .

Indeed, you gotta love computers. I can see why people who don't are
becoming Neo-Luddites. Almost every system I have ever built or bought as
had at least one Achille's Heel that could never quite be worked around.

Eric W

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

Eric Wolfe wrote:

> "Ken" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message news:3IZxd.17183
>
>
>>Thanks for your reply. I tried testing the 512 stick in the other DDR
>>slot and the same type of error occurs. I even tried it in addition to
>>leaving one of the 256 sticks in as well, for 768 MB. Again the error
>>occurred and at the same approximate location.
>
>
> Well - so much for that theory. I wasn't comfortable with running from the
> second memory slot but as your situation points out, that's better than not
> running!
>
>
>> In addition, I flashed my bios with the latest Honey Bios, 030811
>>just to see if that helped. Although the computer runs better after the
>>flash, there is no improvement with the suspect DDR. I tried several
>>memory settings and different speeds, all the way down to 100 + 100.
>>Currently I am running 138 + 138 with the old DDR and it works great.
>>
>>Last night I asked one of my neighbors if I could test out the DDR in
>>question on his MB. I intend to do that soon.
>
>
> That's true friendship!
>
>
>>He suggested it sounded
>>like a defective stick of DDR, and I would agree if it were not the same
>>type of failure as had occurred on the first stick I bought. Certainly
>>it is possible, but to have the same defective location in two separate
>>sticks of memory seems very unlikely. I will post the results after I
>>test it on his machine.
>
>
> Lots of MB's have issues with high density RAM. What are the chip counts on
> the respective sticks? I am assuming the new RAM has either the same number
> of chips or fewer than its lower capacity counterpart.

The working 256 DDR sticks are single sided and have eight ICs on that
side. The 512 problem stick also has eight ICs on each side but is of
course double sided. I encountered the high density problem on other
computers with SDRAM, but in those situations it detected half of the
capacity of the stick during POST. In the DDR in question, it detects
the full capacity of the stick and does not fail at exactly the half way
point.
>
>
>>I would be convinced that it was a brand/quality problem if it were not
>>for having a 256 MB stick of the same speed and brand, and that piece
>>works perfectly! You have got to love computers.
>
>
> If your neighbor has a MB made in the last year or so, it should be able to
> run your RAM with no problems if the density theory is correct. If it's
> older, it could easily evidence the same problem. One of the reasons I
> bought the el cheapo DDR RAM was that I had purchased some similarly cheap
> PC133 RAM to upgrade an old Asus P5A but that MB was too old to see a single
> hi-density RAM stick. What I divined from Google was that no BIOS upgrade
> could fix it. It was a hard-wired "feature." The machine counted up to 1GB
> in the POST before it locked up, clearly a sign it was choking on the
> hi-density 512MB RAM.

I think he does, because we discussed the speed at which I was running
the memory. What I find peculiar is the fact that it still failed even
after lowering the FSB to 100 MHZ. This memory is rated at 166 MHZ or
DDR 333. I expect it is due to the gremlins in the ECS mother board, of
which I have read there are many. If it was not for the fact that one
of the working sticks was a Kingston Value Ram rated at PC2700, I would
have immediately blamed it on the RAM quality and given up. No easy way
out for me!!!!! I WILL find the answer!!!

>
> I just bought a 1GB SD card and am having the same fun. The digital card
> reader sees 1GB but considers itself full after 127 files and 447MB. Yet
> the DVR camera and the MP3 player both see the 1GB correctly and the camera
> can fill out the space that the card reader refused to. But the DVR writes
> in some bizarre ASF format that I can't seem to find a codec for . . .
>
> Indeed, you gotta love computers. I can see why people who don't are
> becoming Neo-Luddites. Almost every system I have ever built or bought as
> had at least one Achille's Heel that could never quite be worked around.
>
> Eric W
>
>
Since we encountered some snow and ice yesterday, I expect my neighbor
will not be going to work today. I hope to have done my experiment
today and have some results to post with regard to the testing of the DDR.

In your comment about high density RAM, I think the chip set is the
limiting factor with regard to its detection and handling of high
density RAM. Some older chip sets were designed for a certain number of
RAS and CAS bits and when the high density RAM came to be, they exceeded
those design limits.

The neat thing about working on computers is that just when you think
you are getting smarter, along comes a problem that humbles you.
Neighbors who simply buy a computer and leave it alone, think you are a
magician. There is a saying: "In the land of the blind, the one eyed
man is king." I guess it just depends upon who one compares their self
to???

Ken

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

> The working 256 DDR sticks are single sided and have eight ICs on that
> side. The 512 problem stick also has eight ICs on each side but is of
> course double sided. I encountered the high density problem on other
> computers with SDRAM, but in those situations it detected half of the
> capacity of the stick during POST. In the DDR in question, it detects
> the full capacity of the stick and does not fail at exactly the half way
> point.

I would agree with that diagnosis up to the point of expecting incompatible
RAM to display consistent error behavior. I've seen boards that won't see
ANY of the memory, boards that will see HALF the memory, and just recently a
board that will count up TWICE the memory that's there and then lockup.
That tells me hi-density issues can manifest themselves in more ways than
just simply counting up as half. IIRC, the strip in question had all the
chips on the same side, so it was single-sided high density. It sounds like
you have double sided hi-density.

> > If your neighbor has a MB made in the last year or so, it should be able
to
> > run your RAM with no problems if the density theory is correct.

> I think he does, because we discussed the speed at which I was running
> the memory. What I find peculiar is the fact that it still failed even
> after lowering the FSB to 100 MHZ. This memory is rated at 166 MHZ or
> DDR 333. I expect it is due to the gremlins in the ECS mother board, of
> which I have read there are many.

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.

> 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?

> I would
> have immediately blamed it on the RAM quality and given up. No easy way
> out for me!!!!! I WILL find the answer!!!

I've always used the cheapest RAM I can find and have NEVE 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!

> > I just bought a 1GB SD card and am having the same fun. The digital
card
> > reader sees 1GB but considers itself full after 127 files and 447MB.
Yet
> > the DVR camera and the MP3 player both see the 1GB correctly and the
camera
> > can fill out the space that the card reader refused to. But the DVR
writes
> > in some bizarre ASF format that I can't seem to find a codec for . . .

Answer to my own question. It's a root directory problem. No more than 128
files in the root directory. I thought 1GB SD cards would top out at 512.
At least all devices are able to read the 1GB cards. Not so when I was
using MP3 players with MMC cards. They had HW limitations that rendered
them unable to see more than 32MB, no matter what the capacity of the card.
No answer for the ASF format but more information. What I need's probably on
the distribution CD but I'm so loathe to add SW I don't really need to my
system (especially humongous, yet crippled, versions of image and MPG
manipulation software that knocks out the paid-for versions I'm already
using). I'll look there last. (-:

> Since we encountered some snow and ice yesterday, I expect my neighbor
> will not be going to work today. I hope to have done my experiment
> today and have some results to post with regard to the testing of the DDR.

Good. If it involves computers and you are expected either result A or
result B you'll likely get result C!

> In your comment about high density RAM, I think the chip set is the
> limiting factor with regard to its detection and handling of high
> density RAM. Some older chip sets were designed for a certain number of
> RAS and CAS bits and when the high density RAM came to be, they exceeded
> those design limits.

Yes. And I'm afraid there's not really a good way around other than buying
a more modern board. It's a shame the specs couldn't accommodate future
growth but I've learned the hard way that the future defies all attempts at
future-proofing. If what you are adding was made years after what you are
adding it to, expect trouble.

> The neat thing about working on computers is that just when you think
> you are getting smarter, along comes a problem that humbles you.
> Neighbors who simply buy a computer and leave it alone, think you are a
> magician. There is a saying: "In the land of the blind, the one eyed
> man is king." I guess it just depends upon who one compares their self
> to???

I just pity all the people that want a computer to be as simple as an
electric drill. Wanna drill a hole? Point and shoot. No "upgrade switch
controller to Window for Powertools XP" or "Do you want to check for latest
upgrades" when you pull the trigger switch. Just holes. Today I saw an ad
for a laptop that said: "Instant DVD Playing ability (without loading
Microsoft Windows operating system)"

http://www.electrovaya.com/product/li3312.html

I see it as the beginning of the marginalization of MS and their empire.
"Sick and tired of waiting 3 minutes for your OS to boot up?"

Eric

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

Eric Wolfe wrote:
>>The working 256 DDR sticks are single sided and have eight ICs on that
>>side. The 512 problem stick also has eight ICs on each side but is of
>>course double sided. I encountered the high density problem on other
>>computers with SDRAM, but in those situations it detected half of the
>>capacity of the stick during POST. In the DDR in question, it detects
>>the full capacity of the stick and does not fail at exactly the half way
>>point.
>
>
> I would agree with that diagnosis up to the point of expecting incompatible
> RAM to display consistent error behavior. I've seen boards that won't see
> ANY of the memory, boards that will see HALF the memory, and just recently a
> board that will count up TWICE the memory that's there and then lockup.
> That tells me hi-density issues can manifest themselves in more ways than
> just simply counting up as half. IIRC, the strip in question had all the
> chips on the same side, so it was single-sided high density. It sounds like
> you have double sided hi-density.

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.
>
>
>>>If your neighbor has a MB made in the last year or so, it should be able
>
> to
>
>>>run your RAM with no problems if the density theory is correct.
>
>
>>I think he does, because we discussed the speed at which I was running
>>the memory. What I find peculiar is the fact that it still failed even
>>after lowering the FSB to 100 MHZ. This memory is rated at 166 MHZ or
>>DDR 333. I expect it is due to the gremlins in the ECS mother board, of
>>which I have read there are many.
>
>
> 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.

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.
>
>
>>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 would
>>have immediately blamed it on the RAM quality and given up. No easy way
>>out for me!!!!! I WILL find the answer!!!
>
>
> I've always used the cheapest RAM I can find and have NEVE 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. 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 just bought a 1GB SD card and am having the same fun. The digital
>
> card
>
>>>reader sees 1GB but considers itself full after 127 files and 447MB.
>
> Yet
>
>>>the DVR camera and the MP3 player both see the 1GB correctly and the
>
> camera
>
>>>can fill out the space that the card reader refused to. But the DVR
>
> writes
>
>>>in some bizarre ASF format that I can't seem to find a codec for . . .
>
>
> Answer to my own question. It's a root directory problem. No more than 128
> files in the root directory. I thought 1GB SD cards would top out at 512.
> At least all devices are able to read the 1GB cards. Not so when I was
> using MP3 players with MMC cards. They had HW limitations that rendered
> them unable to see more than 32MB, no matter what the capacity of the card.
> No answer for the ASF format but more information. What I need's probably on
> the distribution CD but I'm so loathe to add SW I don't really need to my
> system (especially humongous, yet crippled, versions of image and MPG
> manipulation software that knocks out the paid-for versions I'm already
> using). I'll look there last. (-:

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??
>
>
>>Since we encountered some snow and ice yesterday, I expect my neighbor
>>will not be going to work today. I hope to have done my experiment
>>today and have some results to post with regard to the testing of the DDR.
>
>
> Good. If it involves computers and you are expected either result A or
> result B you'll likely get result C!
>
>
>>In your comment about high density RAM, I think the chip set is the
>>limiting factor with regard to its detection and handling of high
>>density RAM. Some older chip sets were designed for a certain number of
>>RAS and CAS bits and when the high density RAM came to be, they exceeded
>>those design limits.
>
>
> Yes. And I'm afraid there's not really a good way around other than buying
> a more modern board. It's a shame the specs couldn't accommodate future
> growth but I've learned the hard way that the future defies all attempts at
> future-proofing. If what you are adding was made years after what you are
> adding it to, expect trouble.
>
>
>>The neat thing about working on computers is that just when you think
>>you are getting smarter, along comes a problem that humbles you.
>>Neighbors who simply buy a computer and leave it alone, think you are a
>>magician. There is a saying: "In the land of the blind, the one eyed
>>man is king." I guess it just depends upon who one compares their self
>>to???
>
>
> I just pity all the people that want a computer to be as simple as an
> electric drill. Wanna drill a hole? Point and shoot. No "upgrade switch
> controller to Window for Powertools XP" or "Do you want to check for latest
> upgrades" when you pull the trigger switch. Just holes. Today I saw an ad
> for a laptop that said: "Instant DVD Playing ability (without loading
> Microsoft Windows operating system)"
>
> http://www.electrovaya.com/product/li3312.html
>
> I see it as the beginning of the marginalization of MS and their empire.
> "Sick and tired of waiting 3 minutes for your OS to boot up?"
>
> Eric
>
>
>
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.

Ken

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.