> Elliot Schlegelmilch wrote: >> /dev/null wrote: >> >>> Greetings, >>> To anyone that was following this, or is interested. The problem >>> turned out >>> to be the fact that the new processor didn't play well with the RAM. A >>> different stick of RAM solved it. :) >>> >>> >> For future reference, if anything things 'weirdly', the memory tester at >> http://www.memtest86.com/ is one of the first things I try. > > Remember that just because some random piece of software doesn't detect > errors doesn't mean they don't exist. Memtest86 has never found an > error on anything I've run it on. > In my case I think it was just "sync" issues between the CPU cache and the RAM. Although it could have been just that this processor drove the RAM stick hard enough to make it fail. No matter, the stick of RAM is working flawlessly in a different box. :) -Chris //////////////////////////////////////////////////// If only Western Electric had found a way to offer binary licenses for the UNIX system back in 1974, the UNIX system would be running on all PC's today rather than DOS/Windows. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////Received on Thu Apr 28 2005 - 00:27:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:33 UTC