 |
|
|
|
Related Topics:
| DDR Questions - I have a dell that has Dual Channel DDR PC3200 in it. Total of 256MB I want to put another 512MB in it. I that it has to be installed in pairs to keep the memory working in dual channel. Does in pairs mean that I not..
Questions about SuperPower SP-586TX. - I have what appears to be a SP-586TX (also known as San-Li & Hope Vision). BIOS ID = Does anyone have a proper manual for this system? Also the clips that hold the DIMM in place are lower then what is on regular..
Parallel Port pin questions - I am trying to make my parallel port on my home computer drive a seven segment display. Most of it seems pretty simple, but I was wondering what to do with the pins I do not really need to perform this task..
XGI Volari duel GPU card + questions - Anyone who regularly keeps up with PC 3D graphics has already heard of the new Volari GPUs from XGI. Their highend Volari Duo solution will be a card with two DX9 GPUs in parallel. This has never been done before for hardware using modern GPUs...
Misc Questions about Power supply - Hello, My question is about standard to fix and insert What is Zippy ? I suppose a but also a certain standard. What are standards to fix the PSU (I am not talking about ? What is PFC, active or passive what ?..
|
|
|
Next: Canon Elan lens compatiable with Canon Digitial R..
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Nov 18, 2003
Posts: 523
|
(Msg. 31) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:01 am
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>comp>hardware>homebuilt, others (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:34:43 -0500, Frank McCoy <mccoyf DeleteThis @millcomm.com> wrote:
>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt daytripper
><day_trippr DeleteThis @REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 23:06:07 -0400, krw <krw DeleteThis @att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <vt7jg315a2gmrs8k1294fnpqmncfia41ec DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
>>>day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com says...
>>>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:54:21 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
>>>> <delcecchiofthenorth DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >"kony" <spam DeleteThis @spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> >news:npbeg39tfgj8aon14g1sc9ck6f3t9318nl@4ax.com...
>>>> >> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:17:57 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw
>>>> >> <andrews DeleteThis @sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Yes, it did save money but why did the computer industry en masse decide
>>>> >>> that it could safely be dispensed with?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Because they don't particularly care if a customer's
>>>> >> calculations/etc end up wrong if it's not guaranteed for
>>>> >> some critical use. The industry didn't actually abandon it
>>>> >> for critical uses.
>>>> >
>>>> >In fact, for critical usage some companies have gone far beyond normal
>>>> >SEC/DED error correction in servers.
>>>>
>>>> If you are referring to ECC schemes and not memory mirroring, I'd be
>>>> interested in examples that *don't* simply use n Hamming codewords to turn
>>>> n-bit-wide full chip failures into correctable events - which really wasn't
>>>> that remarkable, revolutionary or heroic when it was first employed - about 20
>>>> years ago...
>>>
>>>I think you'll find it's been longer than 20 years. More likely
>>>double that.
>>
>>I'll let you defend that statement with a cite  I'm sticking with the
>>timeframe being the very early '80's, when Digital started shipping systems
>>using x4 drams in volume and needed to survive a full chip failure...
>>
>ECC memory was used back in the core days, when "core" meant just that.
>I remember ECC memory being available for S-100 bus machines; and it was
>*old* technology even then.
>
>You've always had to pay extra for it though.
>The usual price/performance ratio is about 50% extra; and that hasn't
>changed much over the many years; even though it should have with
>today's prices on commodity things like memory set more by distribution
>than complexity. That's why it doesn't cost nearly twice as much for
>1-gig chips as it does for 500-meg chips these days.
If you're going to play out game, do try to keep up: Keith and I were
discussing (ie: "trying to remember" for us old pharts  when bit-scattering
over multi-ECC-codeword schemes were implemented in memory systems.
Not when ECC first appeared. Sheesh...
/daytripper (usenet has a very shallow memory indeed |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Sep 09, 2004
Posts: 226
|
(Msg. 32) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:45 am
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Frank McCoy <mccoyf.TakeThisOut@millcomm.com> wrote in part:
> I said it *shouldn't* cost more; not that it doesn't.
> "yield improvements" or not should count for only a few
> percentage-points in the total cost.
Probably more if it were aggressively done. I think it quite
possible the ECC on CPU L2 caches is for yield improvement
as much as data reliability. I'm even more convinced the
ECC on hard-disks is for density increases.
> The primary cost of memory these days is advertising,
> shipping, packaging, storage, and promotion, NOT the amount
> of silicon used.
Huh? Check the price of chips against the price of built
DIMMs. Chips are over 2/3rds the cost, leaving very little.
> Because, like everybody else, they're price conscious to
> the point where a few cents in millions of units is big
> bucks to them; and with nobody pointing out (and very few
> knowing) the advantages of ECC, why should they promote it?
> It's not in their best-interest to do so.
A very negative and limited view of business. If they could
produce, prove and advertise more reliable machines, wouldn't
that be worth quite some premium? People really _hate_ when
machines crash. And for good reason, since they often lose
considerable work. There's a lot of money out there waiting
for any mfr. They know it, and would go for it.
> Wrong again. Most clones had parity *capability*.
> Almost none had actual parity memory *installed*. I know
> ... I have over a dozen out in the garage; and about four
> times that in obsolete memory sticks for all of them; not
> one of which is parity-memory. It got so bad you almost
> couldn't *buy* parity-memory.
I cannot possibly know your experience, but I've had many
motherboards. All the hundreds of dollars of 40 pin SIMM
memory I bought is 9-chip because the mobos would _NOT_
function with 8 chip.
> Actually, with good reason: If you put parity-memory in a
> computer, that actually made it far *more* likely to FAIL!
> Why? Because all the computer could do is yell and scream,
> "PARITY ERROR!" and crash!
This was a design decision made by IBM. They considered
a crash better than corrupted data. I agree.
> But the errors they *cause* are usually memory-errors.
> Memory being *far* more susceptible to such; and with far
> less margin.
Actually, I see more errors originating from the hard-disk
cabling and memory busses than errors on memory cells.
>>Life critical computing and control machinery does
>>not run on PCs or with MS software.
>>
> Like hell!
Oh? What examples do you have? I do work with such systems
and haven't seen any beyond the occasional MS-Windows based
terminal. And even that was certified and locked.
>>Except I've run several just fine without anything
>>resembling BSoDs with uptimes around a year.
> Pardon my French; but you sound ALL too much like the guy
> saying, "Nobody needs anti-virus software! I've ran for
> *years* now without any; and *I* don't have any problems!"
Well of course absence of proof isn't proof of absence, but
you have not provided any corroboration of your assertion that
memory failures are the main cause of BSoD. All my experience
can add is that my BSoD-equivalents are well below what most
people see. I don't buy premium memory (I test intensively
and extensively) and the number of machines I've run make it
unlikely to be pure luck.
> My own; from maintaining many computers. You run
> memory-tests on those failing computers, and likely over
> 50% of the time, if you run it long enough, you'll find a
> failing memory-stick!
Interesting. Do you run a PC repair business? What service
have those machines seen? How many tests? I've tested over
50 sticks (mostly shortly after purchase, some after 8+years)
12-170 hrs and only had two failures, both new. Apart from
total failures, I've seen about 10 HDs that would throw the
occasional error. Sometimes they wouldn't with a better PSU.
> Well, that just explains why *you personally* haven't had
> the problems I mention. Not everybody is lucky enough to
> get perfect sticks; and of those who don't, most never even
> suspect. But then, that's what the manufacturers *expect*.
> How many people *do* run memtest86+ on their computers,
> even among those failing every few days?
When I've seen machines fail, it usually has been the HD.
Easy to prove.
> Like I said, you sound like the guy insisting there's no
> need for anti-virus software because *he* has never seen
> such a problem. > Yeah, right.
Not quite. The "guilt-by-presumed-association" aside, I agree
there is a problem with worms and trojans. Mostly a usage and
configuration problem and largely solveable with privilege
isolation and other measures in the NIST registry entries.
Conventional Anti-virus software is a very poor second. It can
only react to malware it can recognize and find. Which is
none of the new ones, and few of those designed to fly below
the radar. AV software is a cure, but prevention is better.
-- Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 18, 2005
Posts: 33
|
(Msg. 33) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:47 am
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm.DeleteThis@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:F5LOi.2279$sm6.1326@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Frank McCoy <mccoyf.DeleteThis@millcomm.com>
> wrote in part:
>> I said it *shouldn't* cost more; not that it doesn't.
>> "yield improvements" or not should count for only a few
>> percentage-points in the total cost.
>
> Probably more if it were aggressively done. I think it quite
> possible the ECC on CPU L2 caches is for yield improvement
> as much as data reliability. I'm even more convinced the
> ECC on hard-disks is for density increases.
>
>> The primary cost of memory these days is advertising,
>> shipping, packaging, storage, and promotion, NOT the amount
>> of silicon used.
>
> Huh? Check the price of chips against the price of built
> DIMMs. Chips are over 2/3rds the cost, leaving very little.
>
>> Because, like everybody else, they're price conscious to
>> the point where a few cents in millions of units is big
>> bucks to them; and with nobody pointing out (and very few
>> knowing) the advantages of ECC, why should they promote it?
>> It's not in their best-interest to do so.
>
> A very negative and limited view of business. If they could
> produce, prove and advertise more reliable machines, wouldn't
> that be worth quite some premium? People really _hate_ when
> machines crash. And for good reason, since they often lose
> considerable work. There's a lot of money out there waiting
> for any mfr. They know it, and would go for it.
History would show that bad cheap drives out good. I give
you microchannel vrs ISA as an example. In fact the
whole consumer PC market is an example. With small margins,
and no evidence that people walking in walmart or best buy
have any interest in paying a premium for some nebulous reliability
claim why should manufacturers waste perfectly good bits.
Servers are a different story.
>
>> Wrong again. Most clones had parity *capability*.
>> Almost none had actual parity memory *installed*. I know
>> ... I have over a dozen out in the garage; and about four
>> times that in obsolete memory sticks for all of them; not
>> one of which is parity-memory. It got so bad you almost
>> couldn't *buy* parity-memory.
>
> I cannot possibly know your experience, but I've had many
> motherboards. All the hundreds of dollars of 40 pin SIMM
> memory I bought is 9-chip because the mobos would _NOT_
> function with 8 chip.
>
>> Actually, with good reason: If you put parity-memory in a
>> computer, that actually made it far *more* likely to FAIL!
>> Why? Because all the computer could do is yell and scream,
>> "PARITY ERROR!" and crash!
>
> This was a design decision made by IBM. They considered
> a crash better than corrupted data. I agree.
Actually, how was windows supposed to recover from parity error?
IBM didn't write windows.
>
>> But the errors they *cause* are usually memory-errors.
>> Memory being *far* more susceptible to such; and with far
>> less margin.
>
> Actually, I see more errors originating from the hard-disk
> cabling and memory busses than errors on memory cells.
>
>>>Life critical computing and control machinery does
>>>not run on PCs or with MS software.
>>>
>> Like hell!
>
> Oh? What examples do you have? I do work with such systems
> and haven't seen any beyond the occasional MS-Windows based
> terminal. And even that was certified and locked.
>
>>>Except I've run several just fine without anything
>>>resembling BSoDs with uptimes around a year.
>
>> Pardon my French; but you sound ALL too much like the guy
>> saying, "Nobody needs anti-virus software! I've ran for
>> *years* now without any; and *I* don't have any problems!"
>
> Well of course absence of proof isn't proof of absence, but
> you have not provided any corroboration of your assertion that
> memory failures are the main cause of BSoD. All my experience
> can add is that my BSoD-equivalents are well below what most
> people see. I don't buy premium memory (I test intensively
> and extensively) and the number of machines I've run make it
> unlikely to be pure luck.
Last time I talked to my buddy that tracks failures, it was software
first, then disks, then electronics.
A little research and a few calculations will tell you how often there
will be a memory error.
How seriously you take it depends on how you feel about errors and
especially undetected errors.
>
>> My own; from maintaining many computers. You run
>> memory-tests on those failing computers, and likely over
>> 50% of the time, if you run it long enough, you'll find a
>> failing memory-stick!
>
> Interesting. Do you run a PC repair business? What service
> have those machines seen? How many tests? I've tested over
> 50 sticks (mostly shortly after purchase, some after 8+years)
> 12-170 hrs and only had two failures, both new. Apart from
> total failures, I've seen about 10 HDs that would throw the
> occasional error. Sometimes they wouldn't with a better PSU.
>
>> Well, that just explains why *you personally* haven't had
>> the problems I mention. Not everybody is lucky enough to
>> get perfect sticks; and of those who don't, most never even
>> suspect. But then, that's what the manufacturers *expect*.
>> How many people *do* run memtest86+ on their computers,
>> even among those failing every few days?
>
> When I've seen machines fail, it usually has been the HD.
> Easy to prove.
>
>> Like I said, you sound like the guy insisting there's no
>> need for anti-virus software because *he* has never seen
>> such a problem. > Yeah, right.
>
> Not quite. The "guilt-by-presumed-association" aside, I agree
> there is a problem with worms and trojans. Mostly a usage and
> configuration problem and largely solveable with privilege
> isolation and other measures in the NIST registry entries.
> Conventional Anti-virus software is a very poor second. It can
> only react to malware it can recognize and find. Which is
> none of the new ones, and few of those designed to fly below
> the radar. AV software is a cure, but prevention is better.
>
> -- Robert
>
> >> Stay informed about: Questions about DDR RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 25, 2004
Posts: 127
|
(Msg. 34) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:47 am
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Del Cecchi <delcecchiofthenorth.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> History would show that bad cheap drives out good. I give
> you microchannel vrs ISA as an example.
That may have been more a matter of open vs. closed; note that VLB beat both
MCA and EISA, and (1st-gen) PCI succeeded more because of getting a lot of
manufacturers on board (including Apple) than any technical superiority.
> > This was a design decision made by IBM. They considered
> > a crash better than corrupted data. I agree.
>
> Actually, how was windows supposed to recover from parity error?
> IBM didn't write windows.
It didn't write DOS either, but given that it was the organization that
pushed and marketed DOS for Microsoft, it still shares a fair bit of
culpability. It also was the one who designed the original PC motherboard
with the dubious "parity error goes to NMI" design to begin with.
> Last time I talked to my buddy that tracks failures, it was software
> first, then disks, then electronics. A little research and a few
> calculations will tell you how often there will be a memory error.
That certainly matches my experience. Also, cooling fans are in there
between drives and electronics: moving parts break down WAY faster than most
electronics (although bad caps are up there too.)
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email | "With all the accumulated wit and wisdom in the
is "nate" at the | world, it is pointless to try to select a few
posting domain | choice quotes." (some guy from my HS yearbook) >> Stay informed about: Questions about DDR RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 18, 2005
Posts: 33
|
(Msg. 35) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:57 am
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"daytripper" <day_trippr.TakeThisOut@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:svulg3hdmrmvulsb89e4vln3cr0fbbsetm@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:34:43 -0500, Frank McCoy <mccoyf.TakeThisOut@millcomm.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt daytripper
>><day_trippr.TakeThisOut@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 23:06:07 -0400, krw <krw.TakeThisOut@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <vt7jg315a2gmrs8k1294fnpqmncfia41ec.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
>>>>day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com says...
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:54:21 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
>>>>> <delcecchiofthenorth.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >"kony" <spam.TakeThisOut@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> >news:npbeg39tfgj8aon14g1sc9ck6f3t9318nl@4ax.com...
>>>>> >> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:17:57 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw
>>>>> >> <andrews.TakeThisOut@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> Yes, it did save money but why did the computer industry en
>>>>> >>> masse decide
>>>>> >>> that it could safely be dispensed with?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Because they don't particularly care if a customer's
>>>>> >> calculations/etc end up wrong if it's not guaranteed for
>>>>> >> some critical use. The industry didn't actually abandon it
>>>>> >> for critical uses.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >In fact, for critical usage some companies have gone far beyond
>>>>> >normal
>>>>> >SEC/DED error correction in servers.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are referring to ECC schemes and not memory mirroring, I'd
>>>>> be
>>>>> interested in examples that *don't* simply use n Hamming codewords
>>>>> to turn
>>>>> n-bit-wide full chip failures into correctable events - which
>>>>> really wasn't
>>>>> that remarkable, revolutionary or heroic when it was first
>>>>> employed - about 20
>>>>> years ago...
>>>>
>>>>I think you'll find it's been longer than 20 years. More likely
>>>>double that.
>>>
>>>I'll let you defend that statement with a cite I'm sticking with
>>>the
>>>timeframe being the very early '80's, when Digital started shipping
>>>systems
>>>using x4 drams in volume and needed to survive a full chip failure...
>>>
>>ECC memory was used back in the core days, when "core" meant just that.
>>I remember ECC memory being available for S-100 bus machines; and it
>>was
>>*old* technology even then.
>>
>>You've always had to pay extra for it though.
>>The usual price/performance ratio is about 50% extra; and that hasn't
>>changed much over the many years; even though it should have with
>>today's prices on commodity things like memory set more by distribution
>>than complexity. That's why it doesn't cost nearly twice as much for
>>1-gig chips as it does for 500-meg chips these days.
>
> If you're going to play out game, do try to keep up: Keith and I were
> discussing (ie: "trying to remember" for us old pharts when
> bit-scattering
> over multi-ECC-codeword schemes were implemented in memory systems.
>
> Not when ECC first appeared. Sheesh...
>
> /daytripper (usenet has a very shallow memory indeed
>
I am trying to remember when "package codes" came along, well after the
schemes to deal with x4 by scattering the bits.
Here is a good survey paper from 1984
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/282/chen.pdf >> Stay informed about: Questions about DDR RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 22, 2007
Posts: 135
|
(Msg. 36) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:56 am
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Del Cecchi"
<delcecchiofthenorth.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>History would show that bad cheap drives out good. I give
>you microchannel vrs ISA as an example. In fact the
>whole consumer PC market is an example. With small margins,
>and no evidence that people walking in walmart or best buy
>have any interest in paying a premium for some nebulous reliability
>claim why should manufacturers waste perfectly good bits.
>
Exactly.
>Servers are a different story.
Which is why most ECC memory is marketed "for servers".
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_ >> Stay informed about: Questions about DDR RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 09, 2004
Posts: 226
|
(Msg. 37) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Del Cecchi <delcecchiofthenorth DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in part:
> History would show that bad cheap drives out good.
.... expensive. Plenty of similar pseudo-examples like VHS
vs beta. Yet it is a canard. Quality is an attribute like
any other. Just like price. There is such a thing as
excessive quality, particularly if it comes at the expense
of some other desireable attribute like price.
> I give you microchannel vrs ISA as an example.
Another canard. I used both in the day. Yes, ISA had fun
IRQ clashes, but those were easy enough to avoid. Not worse
than todays PCI-BM card shuffling. Microchannel certainly
was more elegant but had that rather tedious install diskette
process. In the end, both boxes were stable with good drivers.
IBM usually had better, but I ran Linux MC TR for years.
> In fact the whole consumer PC market is an example.
When a new product is introduced, it is usually expensive
and aimed and very demanding customers. The quality almost
always is the maximum that can be achieved. As the product
gains acceptance and market size, both the price and the
quality should decrease because these new customers have
different values. Their values are indisputably theirs and
they have a right to pursue them.
> With small margins, and no evidence that people walking in
> walmart or best buy have any interest in paying a premium
> for some nebulous reliability claim why should manufacturers
> waste perfectly good bits.
Actually, the PC market is highly fragmented, with quite a
quality range. A desktop sells anywhere from $200 to $900+.
The upper end would surely like more to differentiate
themselves with.
If ECC was that big a reliability win, it would not be a
nebulous claim.
> Servers are a different story.
Always.
> Last time I talked to my buddy that tracks failures, it was
> software first, then disks, then electronics. A little
> research and a few calculations will tell you how often
> there will be a memory error.
Electronics probably including electrolytic capacitors
which have to be at least half of all "electronic" failures.
> How seriously you take it depends on how you feel about
> errors and especially undetected errors.
Certainly. I would be most interested in ECC error log reports --
how many errors detected in how many GB over how many power-on
hours. Hard data like this makes a reasoned decision over ECC
possible. Otherwise, it's all anectdotal and worse.
-- Robert >> Stay informed about: Questions about DDR RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 18, 2003
Posts: 523
|
(Msg. 38) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:20:43 -0500, Frank McCoy <mccoyf.RemoveThis@millcomm.com> wrote:
[blah blah ...]
>Now most professionals, people who build server-boxes, probably wouldn't
>be caught dead putting non-ECC memory into a system. But THEY know what
>it is and is-for, what it does, and how it improves reliability.
Well, no. The *customer* has a check list, and ECC is on it. Otherwise the
"people who build server boxes" would put non-ECC memory in it and pocket the
cost differential.
>However geeks like that don't talk to home-PC customers.
>I'll bet most put ECC memory in their own systems at home though.
So, how many desktop chipsets actually even support ECC these days?
/daytripper >> Stay informed about: Questions about DDR RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 25, 2004
Posts: 127
|
(Msg. 39) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Frank McCoy <mccoyf RemoveThis @millcomm.com> wrote:
> price-differential (in favor of Beta, BTW), they both had similar
> prerecorded movies out, and the prices of the machines were almost
> identical, what made VHS "win the war" was the fact that Sony thought it
> owned the market; and saw no reason to upgrade or add features to their
> machines. The competition did.
[...]
> Pure idiocy (in my opinion anyway) on the part of Sony management.
It's not clear that they HAD similar prerecorded movies: one "fact" (no idea
if it's correct, or an urban legend) about beta which is often repeated:
Early on, Sony didn't permit porn being distributed on Beta (although it
clearly either did later, or couldn't stop it - I've a porn tapes on Beta
that I picked up on clearance well into the 90s, and saw a few on the
shelves in Mexico in the late 80s where rental tapes in general - not
specific to porn - were easier to find on Beta.)
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email | "With all the accumulated wit and wisdom in the
is "nate" at the | world, it is pointless to try to select a few
posting domain | choice quotes." (some guy from my HS yearbook) >> Stay informed about: Questions about DDR RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 22, 2007
Posts: 135
|
(Msg. 40) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt daytripper
<day_trippr DeleteThis @REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:20:43 -0500, Frank McCoy <mccoyf DeleteThis @millcomm.com> wrote:
>[blah blah ...]
>>Now most professionals, people who build server-boxes, probably wouldn't
>>be caught dead putting non-ECC memory into a system. But THEY know what
>>it is and is-for, what it does, and how it improves reliability.
>
>Well, no. The *customer* has a check list, and ECC is on it. Otherwise the
>"people who build server boxes" would put non-ECC memory in it and pocket the
>cost differential.
>
>>However geeks like that don't talk to home-PC customers.
>>I'll bet most put ECC memory in their own systems at home though.
>
>So, how many desktop chipsets actually even support ECC these days?
>
ALL of them do.
It's on the DIMM, not the motherboard.
Completely transparent. The mobo doesn't even know it's there.
The DIMM is just a bit bigger; and has extra chips on it.
Fits in the same slot.
You just buy PC2100 ECC memory instead of PC2100 non-ECC memory.
They meet the exact same specifications.
The only difference is the ECC memory doesn't have errors.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_ >> Stay informed about: Questions about DDR RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 18, 2003
Posts: 523
|
(Msg. 41) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:18 pm
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:59:05 -0500, Frank McCoy <mccoyf.RemoveThis@millcomm.com> wrote:
>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt daytripper
><day_trippr.RemoveThis@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:20:43 -0500, Frank McCoy <mccoyf.RemoveThis@millcomm.com> wrote:
>>[blah blah ...]
>>>Now most professionals, people who build server-boxes, probably wouldn't
>>>be caught dead putting non-ECC memory into a system. But THEY know what
>>>it is and is-for, what it does, and how it improves reliability.
>>
>>Well, no. The *customer* has a check list, and ECC is on it. Otherwise the
>>"people who build server boxes" would put non-ECC memory in it and pocket the
>>cost differential.
>>
>>>However geeks like that don't talk to home-PC customers.
>>>I'll bet most put ECC memory in their own systems at home though.
>>
>>So, how many desktop chipsets actually even support ECC these days?
>>
>ALL of them do.
>It's on the DIMM, not the motherboard.
>Completely transparent. The mobo doesn't even know it's there.
>The DIMM is just a bit bigger; and has extra chips on it.
>Fits in the same slot.
>You just buy PC2100 ECC memory instead of PC2100 non-ECC memory.
>They meet the exact same specifications.
>
>The only difference is the ECC memory doesn't have errors.
Ummm....No. And might I add, you really stepped in the dog poo this time...
/daytripper (sic' im, Keith >> Stay informed about: Questions about DDR RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 22, 2007
Posts: 135
|
(Msg. 42) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt daytripper
<day_trippr.TakeThisOut@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:59:05 -0500, Frank McCoy <mccoyf.TakeThisOut@millcomm.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt daytripper
>><day_trippr.TakeThisOut@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:20:43 -0500, Frank McCoy <mccoyf.TakeThisOut@millcomm.com> wrote:
>>>[blah blah ...]
>>>>Now most professionals, people who build server-boxes, probably wouldn't
>>>>be caught dead putting non-ECC memory into a system. But THEY know what
>>>>it is and is-for, what it does, and how it improves reliability.
>>>
>>>Well, no. The *customer* has a check list, and ECC is on it. Otherwise the
>>>"people who build server boxes" would put non-ECC memory in it and pocket the
>>>cost differential.
>>>
>>>>However geeks like that don't talk to home-PC customers.
>>>>I'll bet most put ECC memory in their own systems at home though.
>>>
>>>So, how many desktop chipsets actually even support ECC these days?
>>>
>>ALL of them do.
>>It's on the DIMM, not the motherboard.
>>Completely transparent. The mobo doesn't even know it's there.
>>The DIMM is just a bit bigger; and has extra chips on it.
>>Fits in the same slot.
>>You just buy PC2100 ECC memory instead of PC2100 non-ECC memory.
>>They meet the exact same specifications.
>>
>>The only difference is the ECC memory doesn't have errors.
>
>Ummm....No. And might I add, you really stepped in the dog poo this time...
>
Well ... I plan on buying some ECC memory shortly, and putting it in my
computer. PC2100 ECC memory, instead of PC100 non-ECC memory.
We'll see if it fits.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_ >> Stay informed about: Questions about DDR RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 22, 2007
Posts: 135
|
(Msg. 43) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt archmage RemoveThis @sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Frank McCoy <mccoyf RemoveThis @millcomm.com> wrote:
>> price-differential (in favor of Beta, BTW), they both had similar
>> prerecorded movies out, and the prices of the machines were almost
>> identical, what made VHS "win the war" was the fact that Sony thought it
>> owned the market; and saw no reason to upgrade or add features to their
>> machines. The competition did.
>[...]
>> Pure idiocy (in my opinion anyway) on the part of Sony management.
>
>It's not clear that they HAD similar prerecorded movies: one "fact" (no idea
>if it's correct, or an urban legend) about beta which is often repeated:
>Early on, Sony didn't permit porn being distributed on Beta (although it
>clearly either did later, or couldn't stop it - I've a porn tapes on Beta
>that I picked up on clearance well into the 90s, and saw a few on the
>shelves in Mexico in the late 80s where rental tapes in general - not
>specific to porn - were easier to find on Beta.)
Well, in all the local video-stores around here at the time, if you
could rent a movie in one format, it was almost certain you could rent
it in the other ... and it wasn't just a blank-tape-copy either.
I think, with the court decisions against them, Sony gave up on trying
to limit which movies were copied and went with the flow of competition.
They made more money that way.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_ >> Stay informed about: Questions about DDR RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 18, 2003
Posts: 523
|
(Msg. 44) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:21:06 -0500, Frank McCoy <mccoyf RemoveThis @millcomm.com> wrote:
>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt daytripper
><day_trippr RemoveThis @REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:59:05 -0500, Frank McCoy <mccoyf RemoveThis @millcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt daytripper
>>><day_trippr RemoveThis @REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:20:43 -0500, Frank McCoy <mccoyf RemoveThis @millcomm.com> wrote:
>>>>[blah blah ...]
>>>>>Now most professionals, people who build server-boxes, probably wouldn't
>>>>>be caught dead putting non-ECC memory into a system. But THEY know what
>>>>>it is and is-for, what it does, and how it improves reliability.
>>>>
>>>>Well, no. The *customer* has a check list, and ECC is on it. Otherwise the
>>>>"people who build server boxes" would put non-ECC memory in it and pocket the
>>>>cost differential.
>>>>
>>>>>However geeks like that don't talk to home-PC customers.
>>>>>I'll bet most put ECC memory in their own systems at home though.
>>>>
>>>>So, how many desktop chipsets actually even support ECC these days?
>>>>
>>>ALL of them do.
>>>It's on the DIMM, not the motherboard.
>>>Completely transparent. The mobo doesn't even know it's there.
>>>The DIMM is just a bit bigger; and has extra chips on it.
>>>Fits in the same slot.
>>>You just buy PC2100 ECC memory instead of PC2100 non-ECC memory.
>>>They meet the exact same specifications.
>>>
>>>The only difference is the ECC memory doesn't have errors.
>>
>>Ummm....No. And might I add, you really stepped in the dog poo this time...
>>
>Well ... I plan on buying some ECC memory shortly, and putting it in my
>computer. PC2100 ECC memory, instead of PC100 non-ECC memory.
>We'll see if it fits.
If you can identify the motherboard used on your system, perhaps we can save
you the trouble of returning those ECC dimms before you buy them.
If the chipset - or the motherboard implementation thereof - doesn't
explicitly support ECC dimms, you're gonna be SOL...
/daytripper >> Stay informed about: Questions about DDR RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 08, 2006
Posts: 56
|
(Msg. 45) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Questions about DDR RAM [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <tYuOi.2767$y21.718@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
redelm.RemoveThis@ev1.net.invalid says...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Frank McCoy <mccoyf.RemoveThis@millcomm.com> wrote in part:
> > However, about 99% of memory installed on PCs is *not*
> > EEC or even parity enabled. They all *should* be.
>
> Oh, pray tell, why? Do you believe you know the PC
> business better than Intel, AMD, Dell, HP, ... who have
> decided to manufacture chipsets and computers without ECC?
>
> Do you believe ~50 US$/box is better spent on ECC than on
> improved capacitors, mobo layers, cabling, cooling or shielding?
>
> There are always many improvements possible. The key is to
> choose the best ones. Not fixate like a kid in a candy store.
No, it's more like; there are always many cost reductions possible.
The key is to choose the ones least likely to bite one in the ass,
not fixate on quality like an adult running a business.
--
Keith >> Stay informed about: Questions about DDR RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
