Rod Speed wrote:
> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote

> It would only be bad ram if you got that 8 out of 11 or 12
> result in all systems that specify that particular ram is what
> it can handle and I dont believe Kingston ships ram like that.
>
> > I thought the standard of quality should be that the memory
> > works perfectly in all computers for which it's specifed,
>
> Not all bios can setup the chipset properly with some ram.

That doesn't explain why some brands of modules were much less
troublesome than others or why I've never had an error during testing
with any module containing chips that had the chip manufacturer's full
markings on them.

> It isnt bad ram unless its not possible to find any timing specs which give
> an error free result with say memtest86 and the Prime95 ramfucker test.
>
> > I had some PC2100 modules that always failed testing at their rated 266
> > MHz bus speed, regardless of how slow the other timings were, but they
> > worked fine at 200 MHz. So by your reasoning, those modules weren't bad?
>
> Only if you get that result in all systems that can take PC2100 modules
> and I just dont believe that Kingston would be shipping ram like that.

I still don't buy your line that if a module works correctly in even
one computer, then it's fine, especially because some module makers
claim that they use more than one type of mobo to test their memory.
Why would they do that if one was enough? Also Kingston ValueRAM has
always been the least overclockable I've ever tested, not that I
consider a module bad if it won't overclock.