Re: [PCTECH] Memory Testing update (was:Adventures in near(?)-futility)

["Gary Kuznitz" <docfxit@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My experience with memory testing is I have never found any 
program that will find errors in memory.  (And I have used quite a 
number of them)  I have found bad memory by taking the memory 
to a store that has a memory tester.  Best Buy doesn't charge for 
testing sims if you bring them in. (Out of the PC)  Not all Best Buys 
can test all the different kinds of memory.

Thank you,

Gary Kuznitz

On 15 Jul 2004 at 10:29, Dan (Dan Bale <pctech@xxxxxxxxxxxx>) commented about 
[PCTECH] Memory Testing update (was:Adventures in:

> A follow-up to Monday's post about memory testing.
> 
> I took John's advice and downloaded memtest86.  The memory passed all the
> standard tests and, AFAICT, it passed all of the extended tests before the
> program itself bombed; note that NO memory errors were reported, but the
> program issued an "interrupt exception" or somesuch.  This happened twice
> after overnight testing.
> 
> I went back online to see if there were any resources to explain the error.
> Didn't find that, except for a few references that described some bugs found 
> in
> the program causing it to crash in some cases, and it turns out that memtest86
> hasn't been updated in a few years.  Since it was published under GNU license,
> someone else took over and produced memtest86plus, but I was a bit wary since 
> I
> found no other online references to that version.
> 
> But I did find a reference to a memory tester put out by no other than
> Microsoft!  You'd think that they would manage to mention that in the KB
> articles that blame defective memory!!!  Granted, they call it a beta, but I
> think it's been out for awhile.  It's called Windows Memory Diagnostic and I
> couldn't find it searching on M$'s site, but I fumbled around for awhile in
> support and found this link:
> 
>   http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp
> 
> Ran this test (the whole "suite") starting last night and this morning it
> was still chugging away,  on its 6th pass, and no errors reported.
> 
> db