I think my motherboard is damaging hard drives...

[SE14man]

Hey guys

This last 2 weeks ive had to return 3 hard drives to my local PC store.

Each one of them is having issues and i'm starting to think it could be a hard drive controller on the MOBO.

Whats happening is... When i install fresh XPs or Windows 7s on the hard drive windows has quite a number of errors.

At first i thought it was the CDs but then i installed windows via USB still having the same issues.

I wasnt getting errors when installing windows.. But i was getting errors when i did the sfc /scannow to check for file problems.

It kept creating error logs which were 2 MB big absolutely full of errors.

When i format the hard drives and try to install XP again it says what it normally says which is something like 'windows is preparing setup' then before the option to install windows i get a BSOD.

I mean its been saying this with 3 different new hard drives and i'd find it all really hard to believe they're all faulty!

So im now really starting to think its the MOBO. But my question is, how do i check?

Is there a fix?

If i replace the MOBO does it mean needing a new CPU too?

I have attached a photo of the error i get to here so you know the BSOD i get.

But all installations of windows whether it be XP or Windows 7 have kept giving me problems either after installing windows or problems before being able to setup windows.

All chkdsk tests pass along with WD Lifeguard diagnostic tests. Extended and quick.

Any one got any ideas?

Cheers

[Selur]

personally I would run a memtest since memory is often the first thing to go and cause random problems on all fronts.
Other then that, as long as you switch to a mainboard that still supports your cpu you don't have to buy a new cpu.

[prouton]

Failing RAM could easily create the problem you're seeing. You've got lots of corrupted files, not bad sectors. Just because RAM memory has been working doesn't mean that it will always work.

[SE14man]

Ok guys thnaks for the reply.

What can i use to run a memtest?

Is there a certain software?

Btw i did also wonder if this was because ive been trying to put a 64bit Windows on there?

I done the test to say it can run 64bit (before putting 64bit on there) so i wento ut and bought another RAM stick which is DDR3 the same as the other 2.

So now i use 3 of the RAM slots. Each of the sticks being 2GB RAM so in total 6GB RAM.

The only noticable difference between the sticks is the newest one is a lot more narrow than the other 2.

Cheers.

[Selur]

http://www.memtest.org/

[prouton]

http://www.memtest86.com/download.htm

[SE14man]

Thanks guys. so can i use these memtest86 on an x64 machine?

do you also think its possible the board can't handle 6GB?

Is there a way to find out?

Cheers.

[SE14man]

Its actually failed the mem test guys

What do i need to do?

ITs frozen half way through the test finding 65,000 errors.

[jan5678]

Well , with that kind of errors en freeze problems the answer is obvious i think.

You can try this method, no guarantee.

Discharge your self from static electricity.
Remove the ram strips from the motherboard but don't touch the gold contacts.
Take a piece of printer paper, tear a piece off and fold it.
clean the contacts by rubbing the contacts between the folded paper.
You will see that the paper becomes dirty.
Refit the ram after this and test again.

I have repaired much ram errors this way, it's worth a try

[SE14man]

Ok ill give that a go!

Thanks

[deadrats]

The only noticable difference between the sticks is the newest one is a lot more narrow than the other 2.

this should be a big red flag to you, are you sure that you put the same type ram in there?

[SE14man]

I took it back to the guys in the store and insisted they sold me one of the same dimensions. He was certain this one i bought would work the same as the others. He said only difference was that it was half the width.

Btw i took one stick of RAM out. Which left me with one old stick of RAM and the new narrow stick of RAM.

Now when i do memtest i get no errors.

However when i try to setup Windows XP 64Bit i get a BSOD after 'Setup is loading files'

Things have changed though from 2 days ago.... When i install Windows 7 64Bit or windows XP 32 Bit on the PC it never seems to install my WAN drivers like it used to. so i get no internet on there until i find the right drivers from a CD i have. This is unusual as when i setup windows before it would always auto find the WLAN Drivers and let me go online.

I did a test on my PC someone which told me to do frorm here a while ago to see if it would run XP pr Win7 64Bit ok. The test said it would (It was some bit of software which told me if my CPU was compatible) . But ever since trying 64 Bit versions of Windows 7 and XP ive had quite a number of problems once im in windows such as random errors and missing files.

For example i'd do the sfc scannow test and after the test it would say it was unable to replace some files and then ask me to look in C:\WINDOWS\LOGS and there would be a huge file there with errors found.

I havent actually tried sfc scannow on a 32Bit of Windows 7 but that might be worth doing.

I had an error the other day though (When i had WinXP 32bit installed) during watching a youtube vid i got a BSOD saying 'Dumping phyiscal memory' i think it said. That crash was what made me try Win 7 X64....

Thanks guys

[wulf109]

You might check how the motherboard is installed. If there are standoffs that are not at screw holes can cause shorts because there contacting the printed circuits.

[Nelson37]

The size or width of the RAM stick does not mean a damn thing, it is the configuration and performance parameters. You may have a bad stick of RAM or just two that are incompatible. Best to buy them in pairs.

Test each individual stick. Test the two original sticks together. Do NOT use two different sticks in two paired slots, if you must, put them in un-paired slots.

I rarely use memory testing programs. I remove or replace the RAM and then re-create the real-world situation which caused the original failure. Much more reliable and usable results, faster. I would first format a drive with a single stick installed, then proceed with the install, again with a single stick installed. You must verify basic functionality before you can use a failure of that same functionality to diagnose a problem.

If you are using XP 64, at any time, identify that specifically so that neither I nor anyone else wastes any time attempting to de-bug that unstable piece of crap.

You mention a change to the hardware, adding the third stick of RAM. You also mention an initial crash, then multiple failures during
OS installation. Was the new RAM added BEFORE, or AFTER, the very first crash?

Were any other changes made to hardware which you haven't yet mentioned?

[SE14man]

Yeah i'm going to go to the shop today so ill be picking up another stick identical to the thin one i got from there.

When i get home tonight ill run the tests in the way you mentioned.

Ok i'll stay away form XP 64it in that case! lol

I'm a big lover of XP but i guess the downside of it is it doesn't address more than 4GB RAM does it?

Which leaves me with Win7 64 or Win7 32... But can Win7 32 address more than 4GB RAM?

For Flight Simulator would you choose Win7 64 over 32?

The crash i got was only with a Windows XP x64 disc and that was just after it says 'Setp is loading files' thats when the BSOD came up which i puto n my first post screenshot.

As for other BSODs... Whilst watching a youtube vid (Using XP 32Bit) i got a BSOD come up saying 'Dumping physical memory' it counted numbers then froze up completely. After that error windows wasnt bootable.

So then i went out and bought a new hard drive and installed Windows 7 64Bit onto that.

Wanted to check windows had installed ok by doing sfc /scannow immediately after. It then said there were problems which SFC was unable to fix and has made a log in C:/WINDOWS/LOGS and that log was huge! Like 2.5MB.

so i attempted the install another 5 times with the same error after SFC /scannow.

So i then did the memtests and thats when i found that bad stick.

But i can't imagine the memory would be making sfc /scannow give errors would it? Or would it?

So right now on that PC im running XP 32bit and i did sfc /scannow and even though the XP CD was in the drive it asked me to load the CD which is strange :S it aske dme this half way through the file verification process.

So i really don't know whats wrong with it... something is wrong because i thought sfc /scannow should always finish without telling me it was unable to fix certain files...

I could go out and buy another hard drive i suppose in case the one i was sold was dodgy.... but its passed all checks on WD Lifeguard and CHKDSK.

What about an Solid State Drive?

Can i buy a 2.5" and put it in a desktop computer? Using it as my main C: drive?


Thanks very much for the reply

[jagabo]

None of the problems you had when using bad memory mean anything except you have bad memory. You have to fix that before you can do anything else. Bad memory will screw up everything the computer does. 65000 errors and crashing before completion of one pass in memtest86 is a catastrophic failure. In all likelihood there was nothing wrong with any of the hard drives you tried.

Yes, you can use a 2.5" solid state drive in a desktop. At most you might need a 3.5" to 2.5" bay adapter.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817990015

But fix your memory problems first. Otherwise you'll be wasting your time.

[SE14man]

Thanks guys!

Ok well today ive just bought a 60GB SSD drive but just gonna use that for windows.

Can windows 7 32bit address more than 4GB?

Bought 3 more sticks DDR3 Kingston RAM (Each 2 GB)

So ill test em n report back!

Cheers.

[Selur]

Can windows 7 32bit address more than 4GB?

No, because it's 32bit.

[SE14man]

Hahaha! and im guessing by your answer it was probably a bit of a silly question! :P

[Selur]

With 32bit you can address up to 2^32 bytes, which is 4GB.

[SE14man]

Thank you. But definitely no more than 4GB?

[Selur]

Not with 32bit, to represent the index to address 4GB you need 32bit if you want to address more, more bits are needed and since the OS needs to manage the memory no more than 4GB can be addressed.

[jagabo]

There are a few RAM disks that can use memory above the 4 GB mark on 32 bit Windows. And if I remember correctly, the 32 bit version of Win 2000 Server could use more than 4 GB using PAE. But generally, 32 bit Windows cannot use more than 4 GB of DRAM. In fact, on most systems you'll only have 3 GB or less available (part of the address space is used for I/O and graphics). And most programs can only use 2 GB.

[SE14man]

Ok guys thanks for the help there.

Trying to get a good setup for flight sim if any of u r familiar with that?

Wondering what your suggestions could be for that?

I guess a 64Bit OS would be a good start?

Have any of you done the ready boost thing at all with the memory stick?

Would this actually add extra GB RAM to the system and increase its performance?

[jagabo]

Trying to get a good setup for flight sim if any of u r familiar with that?

Wondering what your suggestions could be for that?

Start Task Manager while running the program. See how much memory it's using.

I guess a 64Bit OS would be a good start?

32 bit programs running under 64 bit Windows are still limited to 3 to 3 GB of RAM. Though the 64 bit OS will use additional memory as a disk cache.

Have any of you done the ready boost thing at all with the memory stick?

Would this actually add extra GB RAM to the system and increase its performance?

Ready boost is a disk cache, not more RAM. It should reduce load times for programs and data.

[SE14man]

ok thanks for the response jagabo.

So flight sim should be ok for a 32 system then?
Because right now im using Windows XP 32bit and am using 6GB RAM. So winxp would address 4GB of that wouldn't it?

Which should be plenty enough for Flight simulator because flight simulator doesnt use anywhere near 4GB RAM.

When ive looked at task mgr under processes its said flight sim uses around 700,000k if i remember rightly.
Does that make sense?

Cheers.

[aedipuss]

winxp 32 bit will address 4gb total, including whatever memory is used by the system. so if you have a 1gb graphics card and a bunch of other memory mapped cards in the motherboard you might end up with only 2.5gb for windows to use.

[jagabo]

32 bit Windows has a 4 GB address space. But typically about 1 GB is reserved for I/O, not memory. That leaves only about 3 GB of DRAM available (one of my computers has about 3.2 GB, antoher 3.4 GB, I've heard of people having as little as 2.5 GB, depending on what hardware they have installed). Many 32 bit programs are limited to 2 GB (per program). If specially built they can use up to 3 GB (again, per program).

Even if the flight sim is only using 0.7 GB Windows will use the remaining DRAM as a disk cache. So reloading maps, textures, etc. may be faster with more available memory.

If the flight sim (and other software you use) installs and runs properly under 64 bit Windows you should consider that. The availability of 64 bit device drivers is fairly good for Windows 7/8 -- except for some older hardware. If you have a 64 bit Windows install disc you should at try it out. You don't have to activate for a month so you have ample time to test it.

[DarrellS]

winxp 32 bit will address 4gb total, including whatever memory is used by the system. so if you have a 1gb graphics card and a bunch of other memory mapped cards in the motherboard you might end up with only 2.5gb for windows to use.

That explains why Photoshop seems to not run as well with my Nvidia card as it did with my old ATI card. Even with four scratch discs and 75% of memory used for Photoshop.

Many 32 bit programs are limited to 2 GB (per program).

...or maybe this is the problem but I'm sure I used to get a little over 100 layers in Photoshop before it refused to accept another layer. Now, sometimes, depending on the dimensions of the image, it might bog down around 40 or 50 layers and checking Task Manager shows close to 2GB. It could just be that I'm using a lot bigger images now than I used to use back when I had the ATI card and if I have Firefox open which I usually do and Firefox seems to be a big memory hog (especially with multiple pages open) than IE6 was. (note to self - install Firemin to keep Firefox from using so much memory > http://www.neowin.net/news/firemin-20111---optimize-firefox-memory-usage)

[Nelson37]

You did not clearly state if the very first crash came AFTER installing the new RAM, or not? This is very, very important, you may have more than one problem.

Are these very short chips Kingston, by any chance? I have had an unusual number of these type chips fail. If they are Kingston, that will push it over the edge to "do not use this hardware under any circumstances". Unless it's free, and the PC doesn't matter. Yours will make 3 out of 6, I think. Might be four out of seven.

Haven't used a MS Flight simulator in years, but they used to be very RAM and CPU hungry. Pretty sure it runs on 64-bit, absolutely positively go for Win 7 64 over the 32-bit version. What do you fly? Memory usage should vary with maps and other features. More RAM is almost always better.

Want to emphasize RAM specs, there is speed, configuration, several timing numbers, all should match, even doing that does not guarantee compatibility, buying packaged sets of chips is By Far the best way to go. Allowing the goof at the local PC store to match the RAM is just not the way to go. You're lucky they gave you DDR3 when you asked for it.

Also, why are you running System File Checker so often? I've used that thing maybe twice, IMO it's not really very useful. Like spending an hour on a Memory Test when a module can be removed and the error tested in minutes, with a real answer.