Re: Weird Word printer problem

["Neil Palmer" <neilp@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

John,

Very interesting.  Apart from pulling the memory out of the PC and looking
for secret voodoo markings on the chips, is there any other way to
determine if you have CLK2/3/4 chips ?  Oh for the simpler days whern
there were only 2 kinds, regular and salt & vinegar !

...Neil





"John Taylor" <jtaylor@rpg2java.com>
Sent by: midrange-nontech-admin@midrange.com
2002/03/07 11:11
Please respond to midrange-nontech


        To:     <midrange-nontech@midrange.com>
        cc:
        Subject:        Re: Weird Word printer problem


I had one machine that was also consistently getting the "cannot read
memory" error. Reinstalling the operating system didn't help. The problem
was finally resolved when I changed the SDRAM chips. W2K seems to be very
picky about RAM quality, and the associated BIOS settings.  You need to
make
sure that you know whether your SDRAM chips are CLK2, 3, or 4, and that
the
BIOS is set accordlingly.


John Taylor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Palmer" <neilp@dpslink.com>
To: <midrange-nontech@midrange.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: Weird Word printer problem


> You must be running Windows2000 Pro.  This 'memory could not be "read"'
> msg seems to appear quite often in Win2000. You would have probably
found
> that after a reboot you could have carried on without the error.  I was
> getting this quite often after upgrading from Win98 to Win2000.  Had
> version 9.0 Millennium edition of Lotus SmartSuite.  Reinstalled a few
> times, sometimes I could open WordPro docs, and sometimes I couldn't.
> Problem also extended to opening Word Docs with an old viewer program
for
> Word97.  Uninstalled the IBM ViaVoice integration piece from SmartSuite
> and it seems to have solved the problem with both WordPro and older
MSWord
> viewer.  But it's not completely gone.  Occasionally I will still get
this
> 'cannot "read" memory' msg, a reboot usually makes it go away and let me
> get at my documents again.
>
> ...Neil