This morning, we have posted an article about Microsoft's decision to gently recommend ECC memory for computers that come preinstalled with Vista. The benefit, according to Microsoft, is to receive a much more stable operating system.  
 
What do you think? Is Windows XP not stable enough today and is it worth to upgrade to ECC for a more stable OS?

I thihk it is a continuation of the recent and quite alarming trend with MS.
 
In essence, they are extending their OS [virtual] monopoly into the hardware realm, thus really reducing consumer choice.
 
It began with the insanely steep hardware requirements (most notably, graphics) that would most likely cause people that would like to upgrade the OS upgrade their systems at some significant cost, then it affected teh next gen DVD format war, and now it is expanding into other areas of the system.
 
Plus, the DRMs that they are pushing are quite insane as well.  I think I recall at some point they were proposing monitors with DRM?!  So now users need to upgrade that, as well.
 
I think any shifts in the hardware markets should be driven by the hardware market, and not some OS gimmickry.  If there is an argument to be made for natural monopoly in the OS segment, it definitely should not extend to hardware.

If it's required, yes. But I think it's actually insane that Microsoft expects us to buy special hardware, just because they're too lazy to finish their software properly.

Are you mad???  In what possible way would M$ benefit by forcing (or recommending) that people use ECC memory?  Last I checked M$ doesn't make memory nor do they own an significant shares/interests in memory.
 
Everyone makes ECC memory.  The statement that it somehow benefits M$ (both financially and strategically) to make people use ECC memory is insane.
 

 
Hey, last time I checked every single computer sold in the world has some some sort of 3D acceleration.  Every computer sold in the past 4 years has 3d acceleration.  Explain to me how M$ has made this so!  And please show me the "steep hardware requirements" that will be required to run Avalon.  Do you even know what the minimum requirements are???  Probably not so I'll post them below.
 
An AGP or PCI-e video card with 64MB of VRAM.  Wow... so steep.  And even if some people don't have this, M$ has stated Vista will run in 2D mode w/ a WinXP look just fine.  Here is a list of compatible chips/cards from ATI/nVidia/Intel:
 
http://www.ati.com/technology/windowsvista/index.html
http://www.nvidia.com/page/technology_vista_home.html
http://www.intel.com/business/bss/ [...] /index.htm
 
The evolution to a 3D accelerated GUI is a natural one.  It's a complete waste of talent NOT to use 3D acceleration.
 

 
Please explain to me how M$ has a vritual monopoly in the hardware realm.  Really, I want to know.
 
-mpjesse

Personally I don't feel a single difference between ECC and non-ECC RAM other than compromised overclocking potential.
 
My current rig with 2x512MB @251Mhz is just as stable as my server with 1GB PC2100 ECC+Reg. Both running 24/7.
 
I think some PR guy in M$ has gone nutz or don't know a damn about what makes server a server(and vice versa for desktop).

I for one see this is a good thing.
 
Naturally, quality RAM is going to be almost as good as ECC memory.  But the problem is the majority of system builders put cheap, crappy memory in the systems they sell.  (the exception of course would be Dell, Gateway, and all the big boys- they tend to use name brand stuff)
 
Since system builders will never voluntarily put good memory in their systems, M$ wants them to use ECC.  With ECC you can have it both ways- cheap memory with added stability.  The price of ECC will fall as demand and production increases.  It appears to me that M$ is trying to make system builders a little more accountable for stability.
 
Why is that bad?
 
-mpjesse

But ECC=zero overclocking [/agonised overclocker]
 
And I certainly don't want the possiblity of the whole industry turning into something like S940! 8O

You know, if Microsoft does make us need ECC memory, it'll show the whole damn world that they are greedy biatches.  Over my dead body I'll pay more for some needless stuff.
 
Just my worthless 2 cents.

this make me more...more...hated with Ms/vista. what are they thinking?. forcing people to buy this and that....upgrade this and that. just to load their junk. with all nonsense requirement....is vista worth of upgrade?.  can vista run on laptop ?(as they stated "compatible vista laptop" ). with the insane requirement, can the laptop run in mobile mode (cpu with 800MHz) while preserving batery?.....I don't think so

 
Interesting how some speculate and act as if the speculation was pure gospel (refering to some of the uninformed replies). Anyways, I am speculating here, but it is my professional opinion that MS is doing this not because Vista needs ECC memory, but because ALL modern memory needs to be ECC. Back when memory modules where 256MB and less, non-ECC memory was fine. Fact is anything 512MB or larger *NEEDS* to be ECC to run stable. Chances are you are getting dozens of memory errors a day but they just go unnoticed as they rarely affect vital data. Memory needs to be ECC because it is getting larger. Even XP is less stable with my two 1GB RAM sticks than it was with a single 512MB stick. Faster, but less reliable. Just my opinion though.

I have built about 20 systems with the AMD Athlong 64/Opteron platform and I never found the required ECC on the Opterons to provide any better stability than Corsair Non ECC memory.  I have not noticed a difference between buffered and non buffered.  NUMA is freaking cool, but programs crash or ignore avalible memory.  Getting good code, stil seems like a harder proposition than getting good software.  It is as such that I think MS has other reasons for the memory soft requirement.
 
I think this requirement is for other reasons:
1.)encryption keys stored only in ram
if windows vista is all about security and stability, it would make sense that some of these hardware keys are stored in ram, and they are accessed alot.  It is just a guess, but I also think MS might be thinking about storing programs in an encrypted memory space making it really hard to hook code from another application.  Things like these are already being done on  MS's xbox consoles.  It wouldn't suprise me if some of that will filter its way into Vista.
 
2.)non execute bits
i still kinda wonder how the NX bit works, but from what i know, the NX bit must be stored in memory before being sent to the processor for execution, if an NX bit was set in error or intentionally on a buffer overflow section of memory, I could be used to hook other processes.  This could be another step in securing the software of an OS from easy hardware hacking.
 
3.)quick boots on laptops
it is another guess, but a likely one that as Intel and AMD make the push for INSTANT ON computing, a feature in Vista, they have found that to skip the step of reloading memory from the hard drive requires better memory for maintaining a system state.  I still have not gotten a gaming box to work correctly with a suspend mode(its like a ram only hibernate) vs hibernate that writes to the hard drive and then shuts down.
 
4.)this could be a prerequirement for flash ram
agian, INSTANT ON computing, is a big movement right now and as flash memory merges with other memory types and serves as a cross gap between ram and hard drives, this ECC requirement might be a puch now for the XP version of Vista.
 
I don't plan on getting Vista at this point, DirectX 10 cards are not yet avalible and all of the new features will take some time to sort out.  I will continue to evaluate it as a MSDN developer, but Mac OS X seems like a more usefull OS to learn, as it can bridge the gap between a working gui and linux/bsd platform with suported software on it.

I'm sorry, were we reading the same article?  Where does it say M$ is forcing anyone to do anything?
 
They are merely suggesting system builders use ECC.
 
Sheesh... chill out.
 
-mpjesse

 
Yes, you are right.  Corsair memory (even the cheap stuff) is probably just as good as ECC.
 
The problem is this: the majority of the computers sold with Windows XP use CRAP, GENERIC, CHEAP memory.  Nearly no system builder ships their system with corsair!  The only builders who do that are builders like Alienware who make up .001% of the market.
 
-mpjesse

I would REALLY like to see MS make it so I can tell what components are responsible for some random crashes. Granted, crash frequency is infrequent, but diagnosing the cause (Memory, video card mem,  other hardware, etc) is still near impossible for some those odd crashes that leave absolutely nothing in the event logs or information that is otherwise useless for me the "user". I can't help but wonder if memory is getting a bad rap here. Its would seem much more likely the more complex components would be more prone to failure than the (relatively) simple memory sticks. (History of failures seem to point to this, too as, generally speaking, complexity fails and simplicity succeeds)
 
 (just a scan through my event log pulled these 2 prime examples)
 
Event Type: Error
Event Source:  
Event Category: None
Event ID: 0
Date:  11/1/2005
Time:  6:27:03 PM
User:  N/A
Computer: G
Description:
The description for Event ID ( 0 ) in Source (   ) cannot be found. The local computer may not have the necessary registry information or message DLL files to display messages from a remote computer. You may be able to use the /AUXSOURCE= flag to retrieve this description; see Help and Support for details. The following information is part of the event: 6.
Data:
0000: 3f 3f d1 2a e3 ee 92 2d   ??Ñ*ãî’-
0008: ae 39 d9 22 ee e9 9a e5   ®9Ù"îéšå
0010: 2e 2f c1 3a f3 f1 82 3d   ./Á:óñ‚=
0018: e9 22 8d 32 f9 f9 8a 35   é"?2ùùŠ5
0020: 1f 1f f1 0a af bf f6 0a   ..ñ.¯¿ö.
0028: 82 e0 eb 02 d7 c9 ba 05   ‚àë.×ɺ.
0030: 6a 22 b8 f7 63 26 b0 1d   j"¸÷c&°.
0038: 06 07 e9 12 cb f4 f3 f8   ..é.Ëôóø
0040: 41 7f 90 6a a3 a1 d2 6d   A?j£¡Òm
0048: 76 77 99 62 ab a9 da 65   vw™b«©Úe
0050: 6e 6f 81 7a b3 b1 c2 7d   no?z³±Â}
0058: 66 67 89 72 bb b9 ca 75   fg‰r»¹Êu
 
 
Ohhhhhh here's another one of my favorites...
 
Event Type: Error
Event Source: System Error
Event Category: (102)
Event ID: 1003
Date:  2/5/2006
Time:  12:44:38 PM
User:  N/A
Computer: G
Description:
Error code 1000007f, parameter1 00000008, parameter2 f788ed70, parameter3 00000000, parameter4 00000000.
 
For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 53 79 73 74 65 6d 20 45   System E
0008: 72 72 6f 72 20 20 45 72   rror  Er
0010: 72 6f 72 20 63 6f 64 65   ror code
0018: 20 31 30 30 30 30 30 37    1000007
0020: 66 20 20 50 61 72 61 6d   f  Param
0028: 65 74 65 72 73 20 30 30   eters 00
0030: 30 30 30 30 30 38 2c 20   000008,  
0038: 66 37 38 38 65 64 37 30   f788ed70
0040: 2c 20 30 30 30 30 30 30   , 000000
0048: 30 30 2c 20 30 30 30 30   00, 0000
0050: 30 30 30 30               0000    
 
 
Gotta love this:  
http://www.anetforums.com/posts.aspx?ThreadIndex=29710
 
So I should replace my memory AND my video card and if that doesn't fix it AND my sound card and if that doesn't fix it AND my motherboard... jeeze. gimme a break. I prefer MS helping me determine what part is failing. Increase my ability to make educated CHOICES as opposed to baby proofing (aka nerfing) my system.
 
side note: memtest86 had seven flawless passes (non ECC) and i'm not about to go about buying random parts to replace what may or may not be failing... see my point?

"encourage", "soft-requirement", "recommend"... I don't like the sound of this at all even if they didn't say it's a "minimum requirement".

Last time I checked you'll aslo need 2 gigs of RAM too, and those graphics will require at least 256mb card. Sounds like a new motherboard and some nice expensive RAM. After service pack 12 though I think I'll look into getting it.

 
The problem with linking between programs is it is sometimes hard to determine what the error is, and what caused it.  At the kernel/process/embedded level of programming, program opperations perform executions related to memory addresses and the data that is directly in them.  Hardware typically writes to and from memory using a DMA channel and is prompted from another software thread running on another asyncronous hardware element, and so if one piece of hardware or a driver missinforms the hardware, it will write to the wrong memory location without leaving a trail.  The memory does not know who wrote the data, and so an exception is thrown.  DLLs have the same problem, and as far as the OS is concerned they are asyncronous(event driven).  Windows used a shared system memory space for OS and for program execution until windows NT.
 
In the switch to NT and later to XP(the latest version of the NT kernal) programs are virtualized by the operating system to run in a logical rather than a physical memory structure, meaning that when a program calls for a memory address, it is not a real one, it is one that has been replaced at run time with the actual memory address.  All of these moving addresses makes it hard to determine who made an async call that wrote to the wrong memory.  The error might have been made along time ago by a program, only to be executed by a program that does not run that often.
 
Moving to a registerd hardware enviroment(where hardware has encryption certs) will allow MS to restrict memory to legal actions based on hardware that has been certified by MS to work, the only problem being that if your key is transcoded wrong, the hardware will not be allowed to access system memory.
 
Agian I think this is just an assertion from MS that good memory is critical for windows to not break, I agree, but I don't think ECC is the answer, GOOD memory is.  I bought value ram once, and my systems started crashing, I replaced it with Corsair and what do ya know, the computer work flawlessly.  These days I would rather skimp on CPU power than on RAM.
 
Its also a way for MS to pass the buck on to the system builders, by asking "did you use ECC mem?"  "oh, no, oh, it must be your problem we will not support it"
 
In one instance I built a computer with some stability issues and the MB company blamed the PS company, and then the PS company blamed the MB company only to find out that the Memory was the issue.