| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2968.1 | | SMURF::PBECK | Who put the bop in the hale-de-bop-de-bop? | Fri Mar 28 1997 12:44 | 8 |
| I suppose an electrical short in a SIMM could affect the MB
circuitry driving the memory.
Keep in mind that any files written while the bad memory was in the
system were in memory before they hit the disk. So there's some
possibility that your problems are with corrupted files, not a
damaged motherboard. (I'd probably consider that a higher
probability, but I've only got gut reactions to go on.)
|
| 2968.2 | | ALFSS2::MITCHAM_A | Andy in Alpharetta (near Atlanta) | Fri Mar 28 1997 14:06 | 6 |
| The XMS errors from HIMEM, the fact I can't run diagnostics from
floppy, etc. are reasons why I feel my motherboard may be damaged.
I'm open to anything, however.
-Andy
|
| 2968.3 | One of the mags says use correct speed simms. | SSDEVO::FIALA | Me, I'm just a recycler. | Fri Mar 28 1997 14:58 | 8 |
| I have heard seen but never experienced issues when the
speed of the simms is greater or less than that required.
ie: According to PC mag [or was it PC computing??] if
the MB says "70ns" you had best use 70ns. 80ns and 60ns
could cause problems. The slower case seems obvious,
the faster case is apparently due to refresh not being
done fast enough. If it were not a PC I'd be sceptical.
:^)
|
| 2968.4 | assumptions | GRANPA::JKINNEY | | Fri Mar 28 1997 15:01 | 6 |
| An asumption.......CMOS set corectly,ns are the same on all
simms,original simms were put back in original slots,original
simms were also tested okay,motherboard can handle total amount
of memory in the configuration that was stated,memory slots are
free of debris,dust,etc,Simms are seated correctly?
|
| 2968.5 | | ALFSS2::MITCHAM_A | Andy in Alpharetta (near Atlanta) | Fri Mar 28 1997 15:31 | 38 |
| > An asumption.......CMOS set corectly
Yes. Each time after changing memory configuration I go into cmos,
view what it sees, save changes and exit.
> ns are the same on all simms
Yes. And problem occurs with even one simm.
> original simms were put back in original slots
Yes & No. Original simms put back into original slots, though order
may have been reversed (we're talking two simms). Regardless, problem
occurs even with one.
> original simms were also tested okay
Yes, I covered this in my original note. I tested the original simms
in a system here at work. I'm not about to put the new simms in a
system here -- may cause problems here as well.
>motherboard can handle total amount of memory in the configuration
>that was stated
Yes. Motherboard can handle 64mb memory.
>memory slots are free of debris,dust,etc
Yes.
>Simms are seated correctly?
Yes.
Thanks,
-Andy
|
| 2968.6 | | skylab.zko.dec.com::FISHER | Gravity: Not just a good idea. It's the law! | Fri Mar 28 1997 15:33 | 9 |
| As .4 implied, I would look carefully at the SIMM sockets, especially the
little wire or plastic piece that latches the SIMM in place. Also examine the
pins on the SIMMs and on the sockets carefully to see that there is nothing
bent (in the socket) or covering or shorting pins (both).
My experience is that motherboards are VERY resiliant to, eh, misadventures :-)
Not to say that it is impossible for it to have a problem.
Burns
|
| 2968.7 | | ALFSS2::MITCHAM_A | Andy in Alpharetta (near Atlanta) | Fri Mar 28 1997 16:08 | 12 |
| Thanks for the feedback. Actually, I have done quite alot of checking
out the simms and simm sockets. I have found nothing that, visually,
appears out of the norm.
I am primarily concerned with the possibility that the memory I
purchased may be responsible for the problems I am now dealing
with. I appreciate the suggestions -- it helps to review what has
been done to ensure I have not overlooked anything.
Thanks again,
-Andy
|
| 2968.8 | | WRKSYS::THOMAS | Stop, look and listen | Fri Mar 28 1997 16:14 | 5 |
| I doubt that the new memory caused the problem. I suspect a connection
loosened up somewhere while you had the box open. I'd check and reseat
everything including the cables and the CPU.
/Rich
|
| 2968.9 | Just in case... | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Stop rebooting! Use Linux | Fri Mar 28 1997 17:10 | 7 |
| re: .0
Just on a lark: check the memory wait state in the memory CMOS
settings. For fun, set it to the maximum wait state setting (I think
it is "2 WS" on my 486). See if the problem persists.
-- Russ
|
| 2968.10 | | ALFSS2::MITCHAM_A | Andy in Alpharetta (near Atlanta) | Thu Apr 03 1997 16:42 | 8 |
| Well, I have since found that the diagnostics run (and pass) if I first
boot to the command prompt from my hard drive, then run the diagnostic
from floppy. So it does not appear to have been a hardware failure
after all.
Of course, it did trash my Windows 95 software, though... <sign>
-Andy
|
| 2968.11 | All is not clear... | ALFSS2::MITCHAM_A | Andy in Alpharetta (near Atlanta) | Mon Apr 07 1997 12:30 | 13 |
| Well, the saga continues. I checked my system Sunday to look for new
email and found it locked up solid. Tried to reboot and started
getting the now infamous "Drivespace Alarm #16" error. Rebooted and
tried to come up in Safe Mode and started getting the the same
"HIMEM.SYS has detected unreliable XMS memory" error again.
I rebooted again, ran QAPlus/Pro and went through 3+ rounds of testing
memory -- no errors. Rebooted and got the same thing.
I have Win95 on my Drive D as well (different disk). Tried booting
this and got the same XMS errors. So, I'm getting really baffled...
-Andy
|