> > Nancy wrote: > > >I guess I will pull the RAM from the c600 and test everything in the > >9600, as it has more RAM slots, which will go faster. After I check our > >old stuff, I can start testing the new chips I purchased. > > Jeff Walther wrote: > > That's where those addresses that RAMometer reports would come in > handy, if any of us knew how to translate those addresses into physical > sticks of RAM.
Now I understand. There is NO secret decoder ring for those error messages. > If you don't know if any of your DIMMs are good, try the RAM sandwich > with a few combinations of DIMMs that you suspect are good. If a RAM > sandwich passes the test, then the DIMM(s) in the middle are good, > but you still don't know about the ones on the outside. Then you > can use the ones that passed in the middle as your known good DIMMs > in future tests. > > Note that the exact converse is not true. If a RAM sandwich fails, > you don't know that it was the DIMMs in middle that caused the > failure. It could have been the portion of the "bread" which is not > occupied by the OS. This only applies when you don't have any known > good DIMMs. Once you have established that a couple of your DIMMs > are error free, you use them as the bread, and presume that any > failures are in the meat, because you *know* that the bread is error > free. Well, I decided not to muck with something that seemed to be working just fine. I trimmed down a set of start up extensions in the c600 and fired up RAMometer. It is now at about 1300 cycles error free, running two 64 MB chips we moved over from the 9600 about a year ago, along with the 16 MB on the motherboard. I am clueless as to the origin of those chips, as they are nameless. The 9600 is at about 1000 cycles testing two old and unknown 64 MB chips. Next I will test six 32 MB chips. A couple of them came out of an 8500 last summer, two were originally in the UMAX (TechWorks brand) and two of them came with the 9600 (purchased used). After those pass, I will test three of the four "new" 128 MB chips. One of the 128 MB chips I purchased was Dead on Arrival, and does not register in the System Profiler. I feel stupid testing RAM that has performed trouble free for a number of years. But, I guess I did not feel I could trust the test results on the new chips without knowing the old stuff was error free. Ahhh... another weekend of extensive computer training ;-) Nancy -- SuperMacs is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | Service & Replacement Parts [EMAIL PROTECTED] | & CDRWs on Sale! | SPECIAL SM LIST PRICES - 24x Bootable SCSI CDROM $39.99, Umax Processors $19.99 PowerSupplies from C500/C600 $49.99 J700/S900 $79.99 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> SuperMacs list info: <http://lowendmac.com/supermacs/list.shtml> Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/supermacs%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
