Re: ca400 for win95/fatal exception 0e

["Chris Rehm" <Mr.AS400@xxxxxxx>]

>According to them the other guy did it.  Specifically, they say that you
>have bad RAM in your pc.  They say the bad RAM wont cause any problem in
>Windows 3.1 because they are 16 bit, but since Win95 is 32 bit, any
>slight imprefection in RAM will cause this message.  I am sure you

As much as I like to slam Microsoft, I should mention that OS/2 users
noticed this problem years ago.

Basically, paging speeds need to be the same for all memory if you are
using a 32 bit memory model. I think that what happens is half an
instruction or value is ready, while the other half is not.

Even memory rated at the same speed (say, 60ns) can end up being off by
enough to cause a problem. One SIMM might actually be 58ns and one 62ns.
IBM used to try to tell you to match batch numbers. 

Aside from paging speeds, it also seemed like OS/2 was more sensitive to
problems with memory. In a couple instances, I had people go back to using
Windows 3.1 rather than replace the memory in their machines. I have
always wondered whether those memory flaws were thrashing data that
somehow Win3.1 did not notice.


Chris Rehm             | You have to ask yourself, "How
Mr.AS400@ibm.net       | often can I afford to be unexpectedly 
                       | out of business?" 
Get Warped or Get Bent!| Then get an AS/400.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *