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

Corse it does, they have different detail in the spd that the bios can handle.

> 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.

Plenty of others have, and currently with DDR2 ram like that which wont
even allow the system to boot at all, let alone just produce some errors.

>> 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,

Its clearly not BAD RAM. THAT was your original silly claim.

> especially because some module makers claim that they
> use more than one type of mobo to test their memory.

You dont know that that ram you saw such an obscene failure
rate with doesnt work fine in a number of types of motherboard.

I just dont believe that Kingston would be shipping ram that gets
the result you got in all except one particular motherboard.

> Why would they do that if one was enough?

I never ever said that one was enough. I JUST said that you dont
have any evidence to support your silly claim that its BAD RAM.

> Also Kingston ValueRAM has always been
> the least overclockable I've ever tested,

Irrelevant to whether its BAD RAM.

ALL that indicates is that it isnt as conservatively rated.

> not that I consider a module bad if it won't overclock.

Its irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether those modules
you saw that obscene failure rate with are actually BAD RAM.