Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
Hardware and Windows Vista Hardware issues in relation to Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
Vista Ultimate 64-bit 8GB on ASUS 3A32-MVP Deluxe
Right. I agree with you there. As I said, I did contact the DIMM manufacturer
and get the exact timing and voltage to use with this memory as well as this motherboard. They also said that each DIMM is embedded with the SPD which tells the BIOS which timing and voltage to use. In this case, they are cas latency 5, ras cas 5, row precharged delay 5 and voltage 1.8. I even hard-set these in the BIOS to override the SPD with the same results. To me, this eliminates the SPD as the problem. The BIOS had read it properly and set it for the DIMMS in the first place. And, I contacted AMD, the manufacturer or the Phenom 9500 in order to investigate any issues there - with the memory controller or something else. ASUS, Kingston and AMD all say that the BIOS is properly reading the SPD in the DIMMS and utilizing all the RAM. They each say this is an OS issue. Microsoft will not discuss the issue with me for less than $59 despite the fact that I paid full price for both Microsoft Os' in use on the computer. When one pays $399 for an operating system, they should get better treatment. This is the first incident I ever brought here. All previous issues that MIGHT be Microsoft-related I handled alone, with friends, or with Microsoft in the first 90 days. For one thing, although I have been using computers almost daily since 1978, I am not a good typist and it takes a long time to write these messages and remove most of the errors. I had hoped to run into someone with my same motherboard, cpu, memory and Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit edition, to see how they make it all play nicely together. That would have been great, but since it didn't happen, I get to deal with real life on life's terms. Frankly, all I am left to do is to examine the issue from all possible sides, and try those solutions which are the least destructive and seem most likely to work. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote: The problem is timings while accessing the memory. The BIOS is simply reporting the presence of devices compatible with the mobo. The BIOS is not predicting success of an installed OS. For mobo manufacturers and cpu makers, it is a real estate problem. That is why I call it the "fourth damn dimm" problem sometimes. The electrical distance out and back from the memory controller to the furthest dimm determines the maximum frequency that can be supported and also sustain stability. There is a point at which the memory controller is overwhelmed or cannot keep up. Slightly increasing the dram voltage (no more than 0.1v) can help in a marginal situation as can lowering the dram speed if the highest rated ram for the mobo is in use. I think you are already using 667 ram which is a very comfortable dram speed for current boards so I don't see that as an issue. But the memory controller is integrated on the Phenom so while the cpu is compatible with the board and 8GB of ram is compatible with the board, is your model Phenom AND 8GB of your ram compatible on your mobo? That is the question. It is never the individual component specs but the combination that is such a headache to work out at times. "MrKit" wrote in message ... On the surface I would agree with you about ASUS. They can and do make mistakes or misrepresent things in order to sell their products sometimes, or to keep from fulfilling their duties as spelled out in their warranty. However, I did talk to the people at Kingston, who tested the motherboard model at 8GB with their memory. They are the originators of the claim that the board could run at 8GBs using this particular memory model. It is possible, I suppose, that the memory controller on the Phenom is the problem, but what I need is a definate test to make absolute certain that this is the cause. If it is, I can then attack it from there, fixing the problem or returning/replacing the cpu. However, this would be too expensive unless there was solid, verifiable evidence that the memory controller is the problem. I know nothing of memory controllers on cpus. I just first heard about them a few days ago. So, I don't know how they work or anything. However, it just seems to me that if the BIOS accepts and reports the 8GBs, then doesn't than mean the motherboard and cpu have also accepted it? I am willing to contact the cpu manufacturer. I just need to learn more about the memory controller on the cpu, and whether there is a clear test to determine whether it is the culprit. "Charlie Tame" wrote: Colin Barnhorst wrote: Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB. The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong. Oh well. "Curious" wrote in message ... Maybe the information in the following link will help: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us Yes, Asus have got it wrong before. My old machine says it can take up to 2MB but install that and it reports something off the wall like 50 bytes or something and crashes. New BIOS does not fix, it is a hardware addressing defect apparently. |
|
|||
Vista Ultimate 64-bit 8GB on ASUS 3A32-MVP Deluxe
If you read the entire article you will find lots of discussion about
requiring 64 bit Vista in some situations and at lease one reference to 64 bit Vista with 8GB installed. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message ... Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB. The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong. Oh well. "Curious" wrote in message ... Maybe the information in the following link will help: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us |
|
|||
Vista Ultimate 64-bit 8GB on ASUS 3A32-MVP Deluxe
If you a retail copy of the OS then you are entitled to free installation
support, period. The only other possibility is an OEM pack, and you would be out of luck there. The purchaser of an OEM pack is responsible for supporting the customer for whom he installed the software. I would simplify. I would get XP off for the time being. I would focus on Vista because it is the one that can access 8GB of ram. XP can't anyway. You can always reinstall XP from an image to a second partition or drive and do the usual repair of the dual-boot startup from the MS KB article on installing XP second, or by using VistaBoot Pro. It is really hard to troubleshoot a computer as it is and simplification is priceless. In fact, it is an art form. "MrKit" wrote in message ... Right. I agree with you there. As I said, I did contact the DIMM manufacturer and get the exact timing and voltage to use with this memory as well as this motherboard. They also said that each DIMM is embedded with the SPD which tells the BIOS which timing and voltage to use. In this case, they are cas latency 5, ras cas 5, row precharged delay 5 and voltage 1.8. I even hard-set these in the BIOS to override the SPD with the same results. To me, this eliminates the SPD as the problem. The BIOS had read it properly and set it for the DIMMS in the first place. And, I contacted AMD, the manufacturer or the Phenom 9500 in order to investigate any issues there - with the memory controller or something else. ASUS, Kingston and AMD all say that the BIOS is properly reading the SPD in the DIMMS and utilizing all the RAM. They each say this is an OS issue. Microsoft will not discuss the issue with me for less than $59 despite the fact that I paid full price for both Microsoft Os' in use on the computer. When one pays $399 for an operating system, they should get better treatment. This is the first incident I ever brought here. All previous issues that MIGHT be Microsoft-related I handled alone, with friends, or with Microsoft in the first 90 days. For one thing, although I have been using computers almost daily since 1978, I am not a good typist and it takes a long time to write these messages and remove most of the errors. I had hoped to run into someone with my same motherboard, cpu, memory and Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit edition, to see how they make it all play nicely together. That would have been great, but since it didn't happen, I get to deal with real life on life's terms. Frankly, all I am left to do is to examine the issue from all possible sides, and try those solutions which are the least destructive and seem most likely to work. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote: The problem is timings while accessing the memory. The BIOS is simply reporting the presence of devices compatible with the mobo. The BIOS is not predicting success of an installed OS. For mobo manufacturers and cpu makers, it is a real estate problem. That is why I call it the "fourth damn dimm" problem sometimes. The electrical distance out and back from the memory controller to the furthest dimm determines the maximum frequency that can be supported and also sustain stability. There is a point at which the memory controller is overwhelmed or cannot keep up. Slightly increasing the dram voltage (no more than 0.1v) can help in a marginal situation as can lowering the dram speed if the highest rated ram for the mobo is in use. I think you are already using 667 ram which is a very comfortable dram speed for current boards so I don't see that as an issue. But the memory controller is integrated on the Phenom so while the cpu is compatible with the board and 8GB of ram is compatible with the board, is your model Phenom AND 8GB of your ram compatible on your mobo? That is the question. It is never the individual component specs but the combination that is such a headache to work out at times. "MrKit" wrote in message ... On the surface I would agree with you about ASUS. They can and do make mistakes or misrepresent things in order to sell their products sometimes, or to keep from fulfilling their duties as spelled out in their warranty. However, I did talk to the people at Kingston, who tested the motherboard model at 8GB with their memory. They are the originators of the claim that the board could run at 8GBs using this particular memory model. It is possible, I suppose, that the memory controller on the Phenom is the problem, but what I need is a definate test to make absolute certain that this is the cause. If it is, I can then attack it from there, fixing the problem or returning/replacing the cpu. However, this would be too expensive unless there was solid, verifiable evidence that the memory controller is the problem. I know nothing of memory controllers on cpus. I just first heard about them a few days ago. So, I don't know how they work or anything. However, it just seems to me that if the BIOS accepts and reports the 8GBs, then doesn't than mean the motherboard and cpu have also accepted it? I am willing to contact the cpu manufacturer. I just need to learn more about the memory controller on the cpu, and whether there is a clear test to determine whether it is the culprit. "Charlie Tame" wrote: Colin Barnhorst wrote: Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB. The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong. Oh well. "Curious" wrote in message ... Maybe the information in the following link will help: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us Yes, Asus have got it wrong before. My old machine says it can take up to 2MB but install that and it reports something off the wall like 50 bytes or something and crashes. New BIOS does not fix, it is a hardware addressing defect apparently. |
|
|||
Vista Ultimate 64-bit 8GB on ASUS 3A32-MVP Deluxe
Yes, it points out that x64 is required to access all of 4GB of ram. That
is the workaround. But the issue involving not seeing all of 4GB does not bear on x64. It is a problem peculiar to the 32bit clients. The KB is complex. It first addresses a Windows 32bit issue only, the effect of the BIOS reserving memory for devices. You'll notice through the whole first half that all the references are specifically 32bit Windows. The subject changes midway, beginning with the Workaround. At that point it discusses the requirements for x64 to see 4GB with 4GB installed. Most 64bit computers meet these requirements now. I did have one AMD64 x2 box that needed the BIOS memory remapping option turned off or I would only see 3.5GB. But the Workaround does not help the 32bit Windows user. Notice that the last bullet in the Workaround states a 64bit edition of Windows is required. Then comes the whole business about PAE which is pretty irrelevant to how much memory can be accessed by the OS. It is relevant to program space, but by this time the KB has suffered severe mission creep and the PAE part should have been merely a link to the same info elsewhere. PAE gets some techies excited but PAE can never be fully implemented in a Windows client now. Its use for extending memory addressing also requires a carefully controlled computing environement. All hardware and software must be PAE aware. The use of non-PAE compliant software would bring a system to its knees. That's why you only see support written into server editions of Windows. When was the last time you checked Ad-Aware to see if it was PAE compatible? "Curious" wrote in message ... If you read the entire article you will find lots of discussion about requiring 64 bit Vista in some situations and at lease one reference to 64 bit Vista with 8GB installed. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message ... Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB. The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong. Oh well. "Curious" wrote in message ... Maybe the information in the following link will help: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us |
|
|||
Vista Ultimate 64-bit 8GB on ASUS 3A32-MVP Deluxe
Everything you say is true. I posted the link since their was some
information in it that applied to the subject of this thread and which might be of benefit to MrKit. I certainly was not trying to imply that the link's content would solve the Op's problem. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message ... Yes, it points out that x64 is required to access all of 4GB of ram. That is the workaround. But the issue involving not seeing all of 4GB does not bear on x64. It is a problem peculiar to the 32bit clients. The KB is complex. It first addresses a Windows 32bit issue only, the effect of the BIOS reserving memory for devices. You'll notice through the whole first half that all the references are specifically 32bit Windows. The subject changes midway, beginning with the Workaround. At that point it discusses the requirements for x64 to see 4GB with 4GB installed. Most 64bit computers meet these requirements now. I did have one AMD64 x2 box that needed the BIOS memory remapping option turned off or I would only see 3.5GB. But the Workaround does not help the 32bit Windows user. Notice that the last bullet in the Workaround states a 64bit edition of Windows is required. Then comes the whole business about PAE which is pretty irrelevant to how much memory can be accessed by the OS. It is relevant to program space, but by this time the KB has suffered severe mission creep and the PAE part should have been merely a link to the same info elsewhere. PAE gets some techies excited but PAE can never be fully implemented in a Windows client now. Its use for extending memory addressing also requires a carefully controlled computing environement. All hardware and software must be PAE aware. The use of non-PAE compliant software would bring a system to its knees. That's why you only see support written into server editions of Windows. When was the last time you checked Ad-Aware to see if it was PAE compatible? "Curious" wrote in message ... If you read the entire article you will find lots of discussion about requiring 64 bit Vista in some situations and at lease one reference to 64 bit Vista with 8GB installed. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message ... Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB. The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong. Oh well. "Curious" wrote in message ... Maybe the information in the following link will help: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us |
|
|||
Vista Ultimate 64-bit 8GB on ASUS 3A32-MVP Deluxe
It's a good link. I usually snip all but the 32bit stuff. Frankly I'll be
glad to see the issue die of old age someday when all new computers come with 64bit Windows. Most users just don't have the computer background to sort it out. "Curious" wrote in message ... Everything you say is true. I posted the link since their was some information in it that applied to the subject of this thread and which might be of benefit to MrKit. I certainly was not trying to imply that the link's content would solve the Op's problem. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message ... Yes, it points out that x64 is required to access all of 4GB of ram. That is the workaround. But the issue involving not seeing all of 4GB does not bear on x64. It is a problem peculiar to the 32bit clients. The KB is complex. It first addresses a Windows 32bit issue only, the effect of the BIOS reserving memory for devices. You'll notice through the whole first half that all the references are specifically 32bit Windows. The subject changes midway, beginning with the Workaround. At that point it discusses the requirements for x64 to see 4GB with 4GB installed. Most 64bit computers meet these requirements now. I did have one AMD64 x2 box that needed the BIOS memory remapping option turned off or I would only see 3.5GB. But the Workaround does not help the 32bit Windows user. Notice that the last bullet in the Workaround states a 64bit edition of Windows is required. Then comes the whole business about PAE which is pretty irrelevant to how much memory can be accessed by the OS. It is relevant to program space, but by this time the KB has suffered severe mission creep and the PAE part should have been merely a link to the same info elsewhere. PAE gets some techies excited but PAE can never be fully implemented in a Windows client now. Its use for extending memory addressing also requires a carefully controlled computing environement. All hardware and software must be PAE aware. The use of non-PAE compliant software would bring a system to its knees. That's why you only see support written into server editions of Windows. When was the last time you checked Ad-Aware to see if it was PAE compatible? "Curious" wrote in message ... If you read the entire article you will find lots of discussion about requiring 64 bit Vista in some situations and at lease one reference to 64 bit Vista with 8GB installed. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message ... Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB. The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong. Oh well. "Curious" wrote in message ... Maybe the information in the following link will help: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us |
|
|||
Vista Ultimate 64-bit 8GB on ASUS 3A32-MVP Deluxe
Colin Barnhorst wrote:
Then comes the whole business about PAE which is pretty irrelevant to how much memory can be accessed by the OS. It is relevant to program space, but by this time the KB has suffered severe mission creep and the PAE part should have been merely a link to the same info elsewhere. PAE gets some techies excited but PAE can never be fully implemented in a Windows client now. Its use for extending memory addressing also requires a carefully controlled computing environement. All hardware and software must be PAE aware. The use of non-PAE compliant software would bring a system to its knees. That's why you only see support written into server editions of Windows. When was the last time you checked Ad-Aware to see if it was PAE compatible? Actually, it is not about program space (virtual address space), because that does not change in pae mode. It only affects (bad) drivers that takes for granted that nothing will ever exists above 4G. Normal applications never sees anything more than 32bit addresses, and there cannot be affected. |
|
|||
Vista Ultimate 64-bit 8GB on ASUS 3A32-MVP Deluxe
I installed Vista initially about 18 months ago. The 90-day tech support has
long since expired. I mentioned that in at least a couple of my earlier messages. Both Windows XP Pro 64-bit AND Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit claim to be able to use 8GB of memory. I repeat something else I said more than once before - I will NOT be removing my XP installation. It works, and I use it for things I cannot do in Vista. It is much faster than Vista. There are many things that work in XP and not Vista. Besides all that, it takes too long and is a big hassle to re-install XP and then call in and beg for an activation when it won't activate over the internet because so many tech support people in the beginning told me to uninstall it. I used up the standard number of allowed XP installs just doing what Microsoft said way back then. So, since I am unwilling to remove XP, I am only looking for solutions that do not require me to remove Windows XP, especially since no one has presented one shred of evidence that XP is causing any kind of problem whatsoever. I won't destroy something that's working in order to fight with something that isn't working. This is computer science, not an art class. Computers are black-and-white. Art is relative. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote: If you a retail copy of the OS then you are entitled to free installation support, period. The only other possibility is an OEM pack, and you would be out of luck there. The purchaser of an OEM pack is responsible for supporting the customer for whom he installed the software. I would simplify. I would get XP off for the time being. I would focus on Vista because it is the one that can access 8GB of ram. XP can't anyway. You can always reinstall XP from an image to a second partition or drive and do the usual repair of the dual-boot startup from the MS KB article on installing XP second, or by using VistaBoot Pro. It is really hard to troubleshoot a computer as it is and simplification is priceless. In fact, it is an art form. |
|
|||
Vista Ultimate 64-bit 8GB on ASUS 3A32-MVP Deluxe
Colin is the guru of 8GB memory support and addressing in this and several
other newsgroups. He assumed that when you mentioned XP that you did not mean the 64bit version of XP. All versions of Vista can run 64 bit vista and can support more the 4GB of memory. The 32bit versions can not support more the 4GB for any one process however. One difference between memory support in memory support in XP and in Vista is that when Vista boots it will test the speed of all the memory to insure that it is all running at the same speed. If it is not then it only recognizes the slower memory. "MrKit" wrote in message ... I installed Vista initially about 18 months ago. The 90-day tech support has long since expired. I mentioned that in at least a couple of my earlier messages. Both Windows XP Pro 64-bit AND Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit claim to be able to use 8GB of memory. I repeat something else I said more than once before - I will NOT be removing my XP installation. It works, and I use it for things I cannot do in Vista. It is much faster than Vista. There are many things that work in XP and not Vista. Besides all that, it takes too long and is a big hassle to re-install XP and then call in and beg for an activation when it won't activate over the internet because so many tech support people in the beginning told me to uninstall it. I used up the standard number of allowed XP installs just doing what Microsoft said way back then. So, since I am unwilling to remove XP, I am only looking for solutions that do not require me to remove Windows XP, especially since no one has presented one shred of evidence that XP is causing any kind of problem whatsoever. I won't destroy something that's working in order to fight with something that isn't working. This is computer science, not an art class. Computers are black-and-white. Art is relative. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote: If you a retail copy of the OS then you are entitled to free installation support, period. The only other possibility is an OEM pack, and you would be out of luck there. The purchaser of an OEM pack is responsible for supporting the customer for whom he installed the software. I would simplify. I would get XP off for the time being. I would focus on Vista because it is the one that can access 8GB of ram. XP can't anyway. You can always reinstall XP from an image to a second partition or drive and do the usual repair of the dual-boot startup from the MS KB article on installing XP second, or by using VistaBoot Pro. It is really hard to troubleshoot a computer as it is and simplification is priceless. In fact, it is an art form. |
|
|||
Vista Ultimate 64-bit 8GB on ASUS 3A32-MVP Deluxe
Curious wrote:
One difference between memory support in memory support in XP and in Vista is that when Vista boots it will test the speed of all the memory to insure that it is all running at the same speed. If it is not then it only recognizes the slower memory. That is a job for the BIOS. It programs the memory controller, not the OS. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|