Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro

[Uncle Peter]

You've lost me there. You don't have to use the RAM's limits for anything.

[John Williamson]

Now, they *did* have RAM problems.....

The 16K packs kept falling off, even if you used velcro to hold them in place.

[Uncle Peter]

On purpose, Clive bought broken ones and used the half of the chip that worked. Cheaper that way.

Not sure what you mean. I had a 48K spectrum with an extra 32K soldered on to make 80K. Only thing that ever used the extra memory was a chess database.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Vir Campestris escribió:

He's breathing.

[D.M.Chapman]

This is true for decent expensive PSUs in PCs. Not they case in many server PSUs though.

A decent *desktop* PC does, yes. Probably half of our desktops (>2000 PCs) are small formfactor so don't have. Also, hundreds of laptops - they don't either. Also pretty much none of our servers have large fans these days.

Right. Be interested to know what your experience is - in terms of scale. How many machines do you look after?

Darren

[Uncle Peter]

Around 500 desktops and 8 servers. No failures in service, 5 per year when bought for upgrades.

[Ian Jackson]

This disagrees with what Mike Tomlinson has just said when I asked the specific question as to whether 'faster than motherboard spec' memory could screw up your computer. A couple of weeks ago I replaced a pair of

512MB PC2-4200 (533MHz) with a pair 1GB PC2-6400 (800MHz). After a week of faultless operation, the PC suddenly started to play up. Another 1GB PC2-6400 pair (different make) also gave problems. [As Mike advises, I'll be carrying out more memory tests.]

I have to say that despite extensive Googling, I have found it very difficult to find any definitive and authoritative statements about using 'too fast' memory. When the subject is raised, most discussions rapidly veer away from the original question, and your are left wondering whether the answer was 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' - or, more often, 'nobody here knows the answer, so we'll answer a question that no one asked'.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I will concede the possibility that fast DRAM relies on - say - being refreshed more often than slower, and might leak charge away at a slower clock rate.

I will also concede that it may be possible to rely on a propagation delay to achieve the desired result and getting rid of it could cause problems, though I am not so clear that anyone actually does this.

So, whilst I will concede a possibility, I am pretty sure (and most people writing on the subject agree) that the actuality is that faster RAM wont do any harm *on account of being faster*.

I suspect what dennis is hinting at is an incomplete understanding of how SDRAM works...

it is in fact pretty complicated. Quite a long way from 'here's an address, give me some data'

And if you read it its pretty clear that there is plenty of room for 'one manufacturers implementation of the spec != another manufacturers implementation', with possible results being less than ideal.

So I'd be inclined to lay that at the door of 'instant incompatibility' rather than speed.

[John Rumm]

Yup had RAM failures after use. but as you say DOA type failures are very rare if the devices have been properly treated prior and during install.

I would concur with HDs being the most common failure, Either PSUs next (but they are closely tied with motherboards), and RAM quite a way after. I have also had one CPU failure in use.

[Uncle Peter]

AFAIK RAM is designed to work UP TO the rated speed, so should be able to handle the lower spec being used.

[Uncle Peter]

Since half the RAM I buy is not shipped in antistatic bags....

[Ian Jackson]

My latest update is that with 2 x 1GB of Kingston PC-6400, I left my PC running MemTest (not Memtest86+). I came back an hour later to find the PC running (well the fans were), but the screen was blank (not even the BSOD). It responded neither to keyboard or mouse. A re-power reboot came up with "NTLDR is missing". I Googled this, and was led to a YouTube video, where obtaining the missing file from the XP installation disk was demonstrated. However, once I had booted from the CD, it was obvious that my problem was that my drives had been swapped around - in fact, one was missing. The DVD drive I was booting from (there are two) was appeared to be E, whereas it should have been G (and the other H). The BIOS showed a my C-drive was Drive 0 Slave, and my second hard disk (partitioned as D,E and F) wasn't listed, and I think the PC was trying boot from it.

By doing a bit of unplugging and plugging in, I got the BIOS to recognise my second hard drive. [I'll need to sort the boot order manually.] In the meantime, I've only got the proper C-drive connected. I've also returned the PC memory to what it was when I got it, ie 2 x

512MB PC-4200. I've been running MemTest for two hours (17 passes completed so far) - and there are 0 errors.

So the only two conclusions I can come to are "Yes, 'too fast' memory MIGHT screw up your computer" - or maybe it's simply that I've got a duff pair of PC-6400 (although they did work OK for a week). As I had problems with my second pair of PC-6400, maybe they are also duff. If MemTest doesn't show any problems, I'll next try Mike Tomlinson's test suggestions.

[Uncle Peter]

I've never known faulty memory to prevent a disk being detected, but I suppose it's possible.

It's not a Crucial SSD is it? If you have firmware before 040H, they can disappear intermittently. You can update the firmware from their website.

[dennis]

I am not confusing anything. I stated a fact.

I have fallen foul of a similar problem once when using PLS devices. They changed the manufacturing process and the system failed as the setup and hold times no longer worked at the clock speed I was running the PLS at. It needed a few straps and a change to the programming to fix.

[Uncle Peter]

I can find no evidence online to suggest that 1600MHz memory will fail at 1066MHz for example, but plenty of people saying "of course you can use faster memory at slower speed". Prove otherwise.....

[Ian Jackson]

In message , Uncle Peter writes

The pair I started having the trouble with (and had the above problems with) are Kingston. The other pair which also didn't seem to play ball are Samsung.

[Ian Jackson]

Might my PC-6400 be happier if I upped the clock speed (or would that introduce other problems)?

[dennis]

I didn't say the memory will fail, I said it may not meet the system timing. I don't need to prove otherwise its just a fact.

[Uncle Peter]

When I said "Crucial SSD", I was referring to your failed DISK, not your memory.

[Uncle Peter]

I've found LOWERING a memory's clock speed makes it more likely to pass the test.