On the face of it, disagree because this is a laptop

deSitter wrote:

On the face of it, disagree because this is a laptop..and you know they have elaborate POSTs, special BIOSen, power management issues (I've heard that using lm-sensors on a ThinkPad can just wipe it out, fragging the EEPROM).

I honestly hadn't noticed that he said this was a laptop. In the case of laptops, you can indeed have special problems: I tend to almost unconsciously disable power management on them, and avoid using funny stuff that can complicate diagnosis (lm-sensors, apmd, tweaked non-conservative ATA driver settings, etc.). Anyone who's playing with such things should (obviously) switch them off as a necessary initial diagnostic step.

I'm not sure what your point is about laptops' Power-On Self-Tests. They should not be relevant subsequent to boot-up. I urge placing scant-to-no reliance on any assurance they might purport to give about one's hardware being healthy. In my experience, their alleged hardware-OK results are nearly meaningless, particularly as to RAM, but also in other areas.

As for memtest86, don't know how that is put together but it fails on my Toshiba Tecra 8000 with 256M (not 128M), while Windows 2000 runs fine there. I'll guess that Windows is more conservative about timing issues.

If my RAM failed the current memtest86 version, and wasn't some extremely new type of RAM on some very new motherboard chipset, I would be strongly inclined to believe it defective. I have seen various NT versions pose no objections to RAM that turned out later to be proveably defective. I would be especially cautious on this matter given the dropping of parity support from practically all x86 machines, following the example of Intel's Triton series motherboard chipsets, some years back.

Again, the reason to be cautious is that undetected bad RAM can and does lead to gradual, progressive, and silent corruption of data that happens to pass through it.

On the other hand, if some assurance about hardware quality from MS-Windows 2000 strikes you as good enough to bank on, then I hope your trust is justified, and wish you the best of luck.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Post #66,153 by deSitter 12/2/02 2:21:01 PM Reply	On the face of it, disagree because this is a laptop ..and you know they have elaborate POSTs, special BIOSen, power management issues (I've heard that using lm-sensors on a ThinkPad can just wipe it out, fragging the EEPROM). As for memtest86, don't know how that is put together but it fails on my Toshiba Tecra 8000 with 256M (not 128M), while Windows 2000 runs fine there. I'll guess that Windows is more conservative about timing issues. -drl
Post #66,187 by imric 12/2/02 3:55:49 PM Reply	Yeah, my 390x was a pain at first, too! I had trouble with the 'legacy modem' setting with it, though... Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #66,219 by rickmoen 12/2/02 6:22:45 PM Reply	Be very careful about bad RAM, please deSitter wrote: On the face of it, disagree because this is a laptop..and you know they have elaborate POSTs, special BIOSen, power management issues (I've heard that using lm-sensors on a ThinkPad can just wipe it out, fragging the EEPROM). I honestly hadn't noticed that he said this was a laptop. In the case of laptops, you can indeed have special problems: I tend to almost unconsciously disable power management on them, and avoid using funny stuff that can complicate diagnosis (lm-sensors, apmd, tweaked non-conservative ATA driver settings, etc.). Anyone who's playing with such things should (obviously) switch them off as a necessary initial diagnostic step. I'm not sure what your point is about laptops' Power-On Self-Tests. They should not be relevant subsequent to boot-up. I urge placing scant-to-no reliance on any assurance they might purport to give about one's hardware being healthy. In my experience, their alleged hardware-OK results are nearly meaningless, particularly as to RAM, but also in other areas. As for memtest86, don't know how that is put together but it fails on my Toshiba Tecra 8000 with 256M (not 128M), while Windows 2000 runs fine there. I'll guess that Windows is more conservative about timing issues. If my RAM failed the current memtest86 version, and wasn't some extremely new type of RAM on some very new motherboard chipset, I would be strongly inclined to believe it defective. I have seen various NT versions pose no objections to RAM that turned out later to be proveably defective. I would be especially cautious on this matter given the dropping of parity support from practically all x86 machines, following the example of Intel's Triton series motherboard chipsets, some years back. Again, the reason to be cautious is that undetected bad RAM can and does lead to gradual, progressive, and silent corruption of data that happens to pass through it. On the other hand, if some assurance about hardware quality from MS-Windows 2000 strikes you as good enough to bank on, then I hope your trust is justified, and wish you the best of luck. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #66,235 by rickmoen 12/2/02 6:58:59 PM Reply	Laptop? Ross, having reviewed the gentleman's post, it most definitely does not sound like a laptop: I note mention of a "3c509 card", later replaced "with a generic PCI card". If that's a laptop, I want to see it, soonest. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Welcome to IWETHEY!