[G4] Memory Culprit?

[Franck]

Thank you very much.  Very informative article.  I am having the slow 
Ram exchanged.  Hopefully that would calm down my nervous G4, and it'll 
stop panicking.
Franck.

On Monday, November 17, 2003, at 05:47  PM, sr ferenczy wrote:

> though the specs are found all over the place, anandtech has a nice 
> little concise chart
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=66
>
> PC133 is a 7.5 ns part by spec
>
>
> sandor
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2003, at 10:57 AM, Franck wrote:
>
>> Are you guys sure about this?  I must ask because the two 10ns PC133 
>> DRAM I have were sold to me by a vendor that supports this list.  One 
>> 512, one 256.  The Apple memory that came with the machine is 7.5ns.  
>>  Thanks.  Franck.
>>
>> On Sunday, November 16, 2003, at 04:08  PM, Brian Conner wrote:
>>
>>> Excellent post, sandor.
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian Conner
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Power Macintosh G4 List [mailto:G4 at lists.themacintoshguy.com] 
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of sr ferenczy
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 2:05 PM
>>> To: Power Macintosh G4 List
>>> Subject: Re: [G4] Memory Culprit?
>>>
>>>
>>> actually, that is exactly what would mess things up. for instance, to
>>> be able to be properly spec'ed as PC100 ram, the DRAM must run at at
>>> least 8 ns , so the 10 ns ram that the original poster had wouldnt 
>>> even
>>> meet the PC100 specs of the first G4s produced.  hence, problems will
>>> abound.
>>>
>>> as far as OS X being much more picky about ram, it is to an extent, 
>>> but
>>> more so this is due to the fact that OS X uses almost all your ram at
>>> all times (especially if you have under 1 GB) any free ram available,
>>> the system will pick up for disk cache, etc. so in essence, OS X is
>>> much more likely to find hidden ram errors than OS 9 just because it
>>> uses the ram much more robustly.
>>>
>>> as far as memory testers, most are fairly high level testers (hence
>>> they are also fairly quick) a full test of ram could take days, and 
>>> the
>>> number of different combinations that an OS could send to ram is
>>> enormous, and it could easily be that only one particular 
>>> combination,
>>> or one specific order of combinations actually causes the ram to 
>>> fail.
>>> thus since OS 9 didnt use ram nearly as extensively as OS X, it wasnt
>>> until OS X that people started to realize their crap ram....
>>>
>>> sandor
>>>
>>>