Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Parity error (was: boot failure) Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 10:39 am Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) Here's how your post looks: http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/1255621866 It's obvious that you made an effort http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/post?1255621866 but you've allowed the DEFAULT behavior of the forum's HTML handler to mangle what you've done. The first 2 paragraphs here describe how YOU can take control: http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/1217046552 jack hall wrote: |[...]Desktop with 2 pc100 ram for total of 256 Megs ram[...] |Scanreg restore, no help. | It's NOT a *software* problem. |Problem[:] On bootup fails with the message.... |"Memory parity error detected, system Halted". | You have defective RAM. The system is doing simple checksums on itself and is failing.[1] In Safe Mode, what you were doing didn't access high enough into the RAM address space to hit the bad spot. If you ran a large enough app in that mode, you'd eventually encounter it. |Funny, system won't work with one strip, must have both slots filled. | That's the nature of the hardware architecture you have. [1] Traditional Macs (Motorola CPU) use 8-bit memory instead of 9-bit RAM so they don't have "a parity bit" to do this. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Parity error (was: boot failure) Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 11:21 am Posted by jack hall (308 messages posted) Thanks gewg_. Too many weird solutions on the web. Makes sense, will do. I'm shocked an 11 year old computer with only 60,000 hours on it would fail, but so goes it.. Thanks again. Jack.. On Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 10:39 am, gewg_ wrote: >Here's how your post looks: >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/1255621866 > >It's obvious that you made an effort >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/post?1255621866 >but you've allowed the DEFAULT behavior of the forum's HTML handler >to mangle what you've done. >The first 2 paragraphs here describe how YOU can take control: >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/1217046552 > > >jack hall wrote: >|[...]Desktop with 2 pc100 ram for total of 256 Megs ram[...] >|Scanreg restore, no help. >| >It's NOT a *software* problem. > >|Problem[:] On bootup fails with the message.... >|"Memory parity error detected, system Halted". >| >You have defective RAM. >The system is doing simple checksums on itself and is failing.[1] >In Safe Mode, what you were doing >didn't access high enough into the RAM address space to hit the bad spot. >If you ran a large enough app in that mode, you'd eventually encounter it. > >|Funny, system won't work with one strip, must have both slots filled. >| >That's the nature of the hardware architecture you have. > > >[1] Traditional Macs (Motorola CPU) use 8-bit memory instead of 9-bit RAM >so they don't have "a parity bit" to do this. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Parity error (was: boot failure) Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 8:31 pm Posted by Arminius (334 messages posted) Hmm.... Jack, I see the opportunity to knitpick here if you don't mind indulging me. If your computer originally shipped with 98SE then it could only be 10 years old, not 11. Win98SE wasn't released until the second half of 1999. 60,000 hours translates into about 6.8 years of continual up time. Not bad. The documentation that came with my mobo claims I should expect 100,000 hours of use. I expect your mobo still has some life left in it as well. Actually, it is one of the sticks of RAM you installed 3 years ago that failed, not your computer. You should be able to replace it at a trivial cost. I would go for a matched pair. On the other hand, if you still have the original pair of 64's that came with the machine you could put them back in to confirm that the problem is the RAM and not a component on the mobo itself that it is failing. And finally, what is the chipset of your mobo that requires you to fill both slots? I knew that was an issue with RAMBUS and later mobos but I didn't know it applied to older boards that used SDRAM. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Parity error (was: boot failure) Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 9:58 pm Posted by Kiwi (2228 messages posted) Prior to the 168-pin SDRAM DIMM, there were 30-pin and 72-pin SIMMs, of which one or the other, maybe both, required pairs if SIMMs. It's long enough ago now that the recollections blur into each other, but Google would find it for us, I'm sure. You are correct about the 168-pin stuff, though. . Kiwi ** On Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 8:31 pm, Arminius wrote: >Hmm.... > >Jack, I see the opportunity to knitpick here if you don't mind indulging me. > >If your computer originally shipped with 98SE then it could only be 10 years old, >not 11. Win98SE wasn't released until the second half of 1999. > >60,000 hours translates into about 6.8 years of continual up time. Not bad. >The documentation that came with my mobo claims I should expect 100,000 hours of >use. I expect your mobo still has some life left in it as well. > >Actually, it is one of the sticks of RAM you installed 3 years ago that failed, not >your computer. You should be able to replace it at a trivial cost. I would go for >a matched pair. > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Parity error (was: boot failure) Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 3:50 pm Posted by jack hall (308 messages posted) Arminius, My response was tongue in cheek. It was memory. Problem solved. Why it will not run with only 1 stick is a mystery to me. Like my XP Pro, it only has 2 slots. But with one stick it will not boot. The mother board is a 6269N2U. My personal opinion is it's one of the finest machines ever to hit the market. I love it, but without the ability to run the latest flash or browser, it's becoming limited as to use. If you saw the show, Bill Gates earns approx. $850.00 a SECOND. It went on to say if he saw a one hundred dollar bill on the ground, it wouldn't make sense for him to pick it up. Would take too long. On Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 8:31 pm, Arminius wrote: >Hmm.... > >Jack, I see the opportunity to knitpick here if you don't mind indulging me. > >If your computer originally shipped with 98SE then it could only be 10 years old, >not 11. Win98SE wasn't released until the second half of 1999. > >60,000 hours translates into about 6.8 years of continual up time. Not bad. >The documentation that came with my mobo claims I should expect 100,000 hours of >use. I expect your mobo still has some life left in it as well. > >Actually, it is one of the sticks of RAM you installed 3 years ago that failed, not >your computer. You should be able to replace it at a trivial cost. I would go for >a matched pair. > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Parity error (was: boot failure) Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 4:07 pm Posted by jack hall (308 messages posted) Thanks guy. Was memory. Failed before but I've never seen an error box like that before. Good machine, but getting out dated. On Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 10:39 am, gewg_ wrote: >Here's how your post looks: >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/1255621866 > >It's obvious that you made an effort >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/post?1255621866 >but you've allowed the DEFAULT behavior of the forum's HTML handler >to mangle what you've done. >The first 2 paragraphs here describe how YOU can take control: >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/1217046552 > > >jack hall wrote: >|[...]Desktop with 2 pc100 ram for total of 256 Megs ram[...] >|Scanreg restore, no help. >| >It's NOT a *software* problem. > >|Problem[:] On bootup fails with the message.... >|"Memory parity error detected, system Halted". >| >You have defective RAM. >The system is doing simple checksums on itself and is failing.[1] >In Safe Mode, what you were doing >didn't access high enough into the RAM address space to hit the bad spot. >If you ran a large enough app in that mode, you'd eventually encounter it. > >|Funny, system won't work with one strip, must have both slots filled. >| >That's the nature of the hardware architecture you have. > > >[1] Traditional Macs (Motorola CPU) use 8-bit memory instead of 9-bit RAM >so they don't have "a parity bit" to do this. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Parity error (was: boot failure) Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 6:27 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) jack hall wrote: |Thanks guy. Was memory[...] | Good deal. Any old hardware we can keep in service does my old heart good. Now we have to work on getting a decent (modern) OS on that box. 8-) http://google.com/images?q=Linux-Mint-7+screenshots+site:softpedia.com http://google.com/images?q=Linux-Mint-7+screenshots+intitle:Xfce&start=20 News Item: A significant number of folks getting refunds on unused copies of Windoze are donating those funds to the Linux Mint project (based in Ireland). Note the preponderance of green in that distro's logos/screens. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Parity error (was: boot failure) Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 7:22 pm Posted by Arminius (334 messages posted) Yeah, OK. I know what you mean about reliable old computers that still have a lot of life left in them. It is not unlike a nice old car someone is loath to part with. I don't go online with Win98 anymore but still use it on a couple of computers not connected to the internet. If you don't specifically need to run Win98 have you considered Win2000? It ought to run alright on your NetVista. You will find Win2000 is more stable than Win98 and since you are familiar with both 98 and XP you should feel at home on Win2000. [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum