Memory Test

[Gene E. Bloch]

I think that's more telling about the quality of the memory testing
programs at that time. You'd run into the same problem if you were silly
enough to trust the Microsoft memory tester rather than Memtest86+.
Microsoft Memory tester ran repeatedly on a friend's computer and found
nothing. Ran Memtest86+ on the same computer and it found the errors
within 5 minutes.

If the OP has already run Memtest86+ on his system and it found nothing,
then I'd be inclined to say that there really is nothing wrong with it.

Yousuf Khan

I just learned a new trick. I had written a response to your post and
then managed with a single mistaken key stroke to make it disappear. I
wish I knew how I did that :-(

Back at that time I used either memtest86 or memtest86+ and what I
called DrMem (which is actually DrMemory). Anyway, reading this article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memtest86

it looks more like memtest86+ is a variant than an improvement on
memtest86.

The article also makes it seem that the main changes are adding code to
support new hardware rather than changing the basis of the tests, but
I'm not sure, of course.

One remark in that article that points a bony finger at me is that the
test should be run for many passes, since some errors are subtle and
might not occur on every pass of the tests.

It wouldn't surprise me to be told that I didn't run either test long
enough. But my other test, running on each stick one at a time, was
conclusive.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Back at that time I used either memtest86 or memtest86+ and what I
called DrMem (which is actually DrMemory). Anyway, reading this article,

Looking at Google hits for DrMemory, I think I am a bit confused about
the second memory tester that I used.

OK, I think I am *very* confused

 

[SC Tom]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:41:08 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:


OK, I think I am *very* confused

I explained that earlier. We just had different names for it LOL ;-)

 

[charlie]

I think that's more telling about the quality of the memory testing
programs at that time. You'd run into the same problem if you were silly
enough to trust the Microsoft memory tester rather than Memtest86+.
Microsoft Memory tester ran repeatedly on a friend's computer and found
nothing. Ran Memtest86+ on the same computer and it found the errors
within 5 minutes.

If the OP has already run Memtest86+ on his system and it found nothing,
then I'd be inclined to say that there really is nothing wrong with it.

Yousuf Khan

"I think that's more telling about the quality of the memory testing
programs at that time."

Maybe. The similar issue that I ran across had to do with the
motherboard and buss loading/timing. One stick would work in any slot,
the other would not. To top things off, the memory was supposedly
1333mhz memory, and it would run at 400/800, due to the processor
(Phenom II X4.)
When you put two sticks in, the picky stick started showing random
failures at different addresses in some slots and not others. What
really frustrated me was that the bios and memory controller have more
memory related options than I've ever seen before, so I don't know what
ones beyond the basics might be used to improve things.

 

[southwalker]

I get this when my wireless printer is turned off. Not sure if any disk
activity since it's a laptop.

My laptop does the same thing except it ONLY does it after I have read
about 10 RSS feeds using IE. It never does it any other time but I
only use IE for RSS feeds. The rest of the time I use Firefox.

When I check the task manager (after I can finally get to it), IE is
sucking up memory and CPU.

Wait a minute or so and everything settles down and runs normally.

I have wondered if MS was looking for updates but haven't tested the
idea.