DanS wrote:
> Frank <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:ewYy$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>
>>>>I think if you look at your owners manual you'll see that in order to
>>>>have true "dual channel" you need to use either slots 1 & 3, or 2 &
>>>>4. If slot 1 is damaged then use slots 2 & 4. I believe that they are
>>>>color coded which means that to get true "dual channel" you must be
>>>>fill the same colored slots.
>>>>HTH,
>>>>Frank
>>>>
>>
>>Great! Looking at the photo of your mobo it appears to be color coded
>>but I don't have this mobo and haven't read the owners manual.
>>I'm glad you are aware of what you're doing.
>>
>>Frank
>
>
> Not to be too insulting, but a little bit 'o PahlyxB rubbing off on ya huh.



???
Frank

Frank <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:uM$(E-Mail Removed):

> DanS wrote:
>> Frank <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:ewYy$(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>
>>>>>I think if you look at your owners manual you'll see that in order
>>>>>to have true "dual channel" you need to use either slots 1 & 3, or
>>>>>2 & 4. If slot 1 is damaged then use slots 2 & 4. I believe that
>>>>>they are color coded which means that to get true "dual channel"
>>>>>you must be fill the same colored slots.
>>>>>HTH,
>>>>>Frank
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Great! Looking at the photo of your mobo it appears to be color coded
>>>but I don't have this mobo and haven't read the owners manual.
>>>I'm glad you are aware of what you're doing.
>>>
>>>Frank
>>
>>
>> Not to be too insulting, but a little bit 'o PahlyxB rubbing off on
>> ya huh.
>
> ???

I admit it, it was a lame attempt at humor. Your statement of 'I'm glad
you are aware of what you're doing.' You know. Naturally followed up by
.....'because I sure as hell don't'.

That was supposed to read PhalyxB, like alexB, you know...confused, being
wrong about what you posted, etc.

We've had a go-around or 2, but I don't think either of us are anywhere
nearly as egotistical, snooty, or wrong, (and completely unaware of it)
as the PhalyxB.

DanS wrote:

> Frank <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:uM$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>
>>DanS wrote:
>>
>>>Frank <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>news:ewYy$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>I think if you look at your owners manual you'll see that in order
>>>>>>to have true "dual channel" you need to use either slots 1 & 3, or
>>>>>>2 & 4. If slot 1 is damaged then use slots 2 & 4. I believe that
>>>>>>they are color coded which means that to get true "dual channel"
>>>>>>you must be fill the same colored slots.
>>>>>>HTH,
>>>>>>Frank
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Great! Looking at the photo of your mobo it appears to be color coded
>>>>but I don't have this mobo and haven't read the owners manual.
>>>>I'm glad you are aware of what you're doing.
>>>>
>>>>Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>Not to be too insulting, but a little bit 'o PahlyxB rubbing off on
>>>ya huh.
>>
>>???
>
>
> I admit it, it was a lame attempt at humor. Your statement of 'I'm glad
> you are aware of what you're doing.' You know. Naturally followed up by
> ....'because I sure as hell don't'.
>
> That was supposed to read PhalyxB, like alexB, you know...confused, being
> wrong about what you posted, etc.
>
> We've had a go-around or 2, but I don't think either of us are anywhere
> nearly as egotistical, snooty, or wrong, (and completely unaware of it)
> as the PhalyxB.

Oh...ok...I had no idea what you were talking about.
Frank

Hi, Colin.

> I don't see why 371 Mhz would be of concern.

Not of concern. Just wondering what it means. I'm an accountant, not a
techie, remember. You guys have taught me a lot, but I still hit terms and
specs now and then that leave me a bit curious.

> I think it is interesting that you are running an AMD64 cpu (which has the
> memory controller onboard) and not experiencing any issues with 4 dimms.

Yep. I just powered down, plugged in the 2 additional DIMMs and turned it
back on. The 4 GB was immediately recognized by the BIOS and by Vista x64
with no tweaking at all. The WEI didn't change, but that's because the RAM
rating was already at 5.9. My lowest score is Graphics at 4.6, with my ATI
Radeon X1600 Pro PCIe card. But I'm not a gamer, so that's OK. I had no
problem watching the Packers/Giants game on Media Center last night. ;<)

> It looks to me like you are enjoying one heck of a good computer.

;<) This is my third EPoX motherboard. They are not well known, but have
always performed well for me. I have only one computer so I get to see just
one new mobo about every 3 years and don't get to do much comparing, but I
like this combination.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(E-Mail Removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64)

"Colin Barnhorst" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I take it you are wondering why you are not seeing "DDR2 800 @ 400 Mhz"
> and if that is a problem. I don't see why 371 Mhz would be of concern.
> Anyway the label DDR2 800 (or 400x2 if you prefer) is just a spec.
> Operational ram speed would be optimized for the system.
>
> Most BIOS's (at least the ones that support overclocking) will let you
> increase the dram speed (by incrementally increasing the memory voltage)
> so I suppose you could do that. But I wouldn't. Let the system tune
> itself as it wants.
>
> I think it is interesting that you are running an AMD64 cpu (which has the
> memory controller onboard) and not experiencing any issues with 4 dimms.
> It bears out my suspicions. Your nVidia chipset is for AMD processors and
> I still am not hearing of an issue with them. It seems to be nVidia
> chipsets for Intel processors that I hear about. Or it may be simply be
> that the memory controller is on the mobo with Intel processors.
>
> It looks to me like you are enjoying one heck of a good computer.
>
> "R. C. White" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:789818E2-2ED9-4212-A0B4-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi, Colin.
>>
>> At the risk of digression... ;^}
>>
>> In a later post you said:
>>>>> Clearly it depends on specific hardware and I suspect that it comes
>>>>> down
>>>>> to
>>>>> memory controllers that do 32bit dma. Pc5300 or pc6400 run at 667
>>>>> seems
>>>>> to
>>>>> be a key resolution. In any case, there is no hard and fast rule
>>>>> about
>>
>> And here:
>>> make it. At the heart of it all lies the mobo chipsets. I know for
>>> sure
>>> that nForce 4, 650, and 680 chipsets are prone. I'm sure there are
>>> more.
>>> I suspect that P35 and P38 chipsets do fine but I haven't heard any
>>> reports. I also have not heard much about AMD64 based systems either,
>>> which is probably good.
>>
>> My motherboard is an EPoX MF570sli, with AMD Athlon X2 5000+ CPU and 4 GB
>> PC6400 RAM, recently graded from 2 GB with identical DIMMS, describe by
>> NewEgg as: OCZ Platinum DDR2 800 (PC6400) - SDRAM - 2 GB. The chipset
>> is
>> nVidia 570 SLI.
>>
>> When I boot, the first few lines of the first screen say:
>> Main Processor : AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+, 2
>> CPUs
>> CPU Real Clock : 2600MHz(200x13.0)
>> Memory Testing : 4194304K OK
>> CPU0 Memory Information: DDR2 800 @ 371 Mhz, Dual Channel, 128-bit
>> NVMM : 4.062.0704/24/06 Tcl :5 Trcd :5 Trp :5 Tras :15 (2T
>> Timing)
>>
>> I can read some of that, but not all of it. I am particularly curious
>> about that "DDR2 800 @ 371 Mhz". What does that mean? Do I care?
>>
>> RC
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:FCA63B39-952A-4174-B67A-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Since that guarantees there are not four dimms, it works for
>>> installation.
>>> However, if the problem is caused by more than the storport.sys issue
>>> adding a fourth dimm will fail. There is no one factor causing this.
>>> It
>>> is certain combinations of factors. Something like a triple witching
>>> hour
>>> sort of thing.
>>>
>>> The truth is that the engineering on consumer mobos right now is right
>>> on
>>> the edge when it comes supporting large amounts of ram. As ram speeds
>>> increase the problems get more complex. Some mobos make it and some
>>> don't. Some mobos just need the wrinkles worked out of the BIOS but some
>>> will never make it. At the heart of it all lies the mobo chipsets. I
>>> know for sure that nForce 4, 650, and 680 chipsets are prone. I'm sure
>>> there are more. I suspect that P35 and P38 chipsets do fine but I
>>> haven't
>>> heard any reports. I also have not heard much about AMD64 based systems
>>> either, which is probably good.
>>>
>>> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news110B86B-7D9D-46CB-8F28-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Colin,
>>>> My urban legend was based on the "Workaround" portion (page bottom) of
>>>> this
>>>> MS KB.
>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929777/en-us
>>>>
>>>> I still prefer your theory of the 4 d*mn dimm.
>>>> Carlos
>>>>
>>>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Carlos, I suspect he is using 2x2GB dimms because he had 8GB and
>>>>> reduced
>>>>> it
>>>>> to four. If so that should not be any problem at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with "4GB" doesn't exist. It's urban legend. It just so
>>>>> happens that most people are using 1x1GB dimms and that fills the
>>>>> fourth
>>>>> dimm slot. It is the fourth dimm slot, not the amount of ram, which
>>>>> is
>>>>> an
>>>>> issue if the ram is pc6400 with many mobos. But since the user had a
>>>>> problem with "4GB" and isn't thinking "4 dimms" the urban legend
>>>>> grows.
>>>>> Mobos with nVidia chipsets appear to be especially prone to this. It
>>>>> isn't
>>>>> the amount of ram but the number of dimms in these machines. I call
>>>>> it
>>>>> the
>>>>> fourth d*mn dimm effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have installed Vista x86 and x64 on my AMD64 Athlon x2 system from
>>>>> day
>>>>> one
>>>>> of the beta without issues using 4x1GB pc6400 dimms but was never able
>>>>> to do
>>>>> so on another box running a Core 2 Duo. One obvious difference is
>>>>> that
>>>>> AMD
>>>>> puts the memory contoller on the chip and Intel on the board.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly it depends on specific hardware and I suspect that it comes
>>>>> down
>>>>> to
>>>>> memory controllers that do 32bit dma. Pc5300 or pc6400 run at 667
>>>>> seems
>>>>> to
>>>>> be a key resolution. In any case, there is no hard and fast rule
>>>>> about
>>>>> Vista not installing on ram greater than any particular amount. In
>>>>> fact
>>>>> I
>>>>> installed Vista Ultimate x64 on this box with 6GB installed (I too
>>>>> have
>>>>> one
>>>>> of those fourth d*mn dimm mobos and haven't bothered clocking back the
>>>>> dram
>>>>> speed).
>>>>>
>>>>> If the OP is only using 2 dimm slots then you may safely rule out the
>>>>> amount
>>>>> of ram as the issue. A bad stick is still possible but he has
>>>>> probably
>>>>> done
>>>>> some swapping already and ruled that out.
>>>>>
>>>>> His issue is some other hardware issue perhaps, but nothing to do with
>>>>> the
>>>>> amount of ram.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a thought.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:E251978F-0B24-40D7-BFA7-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> > Hi,
>>>>> > Install Vista with only 2 GB RAM present.
>>>>> > Those BSOD's are a known issue with Vista installs on > 2 GB RAM.
>>>>> > After you are done with the installation you can safely place the
>>>>> > substracted 2 GB's in order to get your 4 GB back.
>>>>> > Carlos
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "M Skabialka" wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Decided I needed a new PC, so bought and assembled all new
>>>>> >> components
>>>>> >> and
>>>>> >> started to install Vista Business. The HDD is a 500GB SATA drive,
>>>>> >> the
>>>>> >> DVD/RW is SATA. 8 GB RAM, but took that down to 4 GB since it
>>>>> >> isn't
>>>>> >> Vista
>>>>> >> 64bit edition..
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Anyway, Vista started to install but got a BSOD within a minute.
>>>>> >> Checked
>>>>> >> all hardware settings and tried again, and again. Every time it
>>>>> >> gets
>>>>> >> a
>>>>> >> different STOP error. So used an XP CD to format the drive
>>>>> >> figuring
>>>>> >> that
>>>>> >> was the problem. It finished formatting then said it couldn't copy
>>>>> >> a
>>>>> >> file
>>>>> >> kodak??.??? Tried Vista again - BSOD.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Tried booting to the motherboard driver CD to find SATA drives but
>>>>> >> my
>>>>> >> only
>>>>> >> options on boot up was to set up a RAID array. I'm happy with just
>>>>> >> a
>>>>> >> normal
>>>>> >> non-RAID setup. There is no floppy drive. The Maxtor CD would not
>>>>> >> boot
>>>>> >> at
>>>>> >> all.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> So, how do you set up Vista on a new SATA drive? Is there a set of
>>>>> >> steps
>>>>> >> to
>>>>> >> take that isn't listed in the drive or motherboard installation
>>>>> >> booklets?

Problem solved. Since a lot of posts mentioned memory, I removed the RAM
and replaced it with 2 GB that I had taken out. On post I got a message
that the memory was over-clocked, so I chose the "set defaults" option.
That fixed everything. Apparently the P5K motherboard instructions that I
configure my RAM in BIOS to 1066 speed because that is its rating messed
everything up. I was able to set up Vista with absolutely zero problems,
even reinstalling 4 GB total of RAM. It's a fine machine!
Thanks for all suggestions...
Mich

"R. C. White" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ef%23n$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi, Colin.
>
>> I don't see why 371 Mhz would be of concern.
>
> Not of concern. Just wondering what it means. I'm an accountant, not a
> techie, remember. You guys have taught me a lot, but I still hit terms
> and specs now and then that leave me a bit curious.
>
>> I think it is interesting that you are running an AMD64 cpu (which has
>> the memory controller onboard) and not experiencing any issues with 4
>> dimms.
>
> Yep. I just powered down, plugged in the 2 additional DIMMs and turned it
> back on. The 4 GB was immediately recognized by the BIOS and by Vista x64
> with no tweaking at all. The WEI didn't change, but that's because the
> RAM rating was already at 5.9. My lowest score is Graphics at 4.6, with
> my ATI Radeon X1600 Pro PCIe card. But I'm not a gamer, so that's OK. I
> had no problem watching the Packers/Giants game on Media Center last
> night. ;<)
>
>> It looks to me like you are enjoying one heck of a good computer.
>
> ;<) This is my third EPoX motherboard. They are not well known, but have
> always performed well for me. I have only one computer so I get to see
> just one new mobo about every 3 years and don't get to do much comparing,
> but I like this combination.
>
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
> (E-Mail Removed)
> Microsoft Windows MVP
> (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64)
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I take it you are wondering why you are not seeing "DDR2 800 @ 400 Mhz"
>> and if that is a problem. I don't see why 371 Mhz would be of concern.
>> Anyway the label DDR2 800 (or 400x2 if you prefer) is just a spec.
>> Operational ram speed would be optimized for the system.
>>
>> Most BIOS's (at least the ones that support overclocking) will let you
>> increase the dram speed (by incrementally increasing the memory voltage)
>> so I suppose you could do that. But I wouldn't. Let the system tune
>> itself as it wants.
>>
>> I think it is interesting that you are running an AMD64 cpu (which has
>> the memory controller onboard) and not experiencing any issues with 4
>> dimms. It bears out my suspicions. Your nVidia chipset is for AMD
>> processors and I still am not hearing of an issue with them. It seems to
>> be nVidia chipsets for Intel processors that I hear about. Or it may be
>> simply be that the memory controller is on the mobo with Intel
>> processors.
>>
>> It looks to me like you are enjoying one heck of a good computer.
>>
>> "R. C. White" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:789818E2-2ED9-4212-A0B4-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Hi, Colin.
>>>
>>> At the risk of digression... ;^}
>>>
>>> In a later post you said:
>>>>>> Clearly it depends on specific hardware and I suspect that it comes
>>>>>> down
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> memory controllers that do 32bit dma. Pc5300 or pc6400 run at 667
>>>>>> seems
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be a key resolution. In any case, there is no hard and fast rule
>>>>>> about
>>>
>>> And here:
>>>> make it. At the heart of it all lies the mobo chipsets. I know for
>>>> sure
>>>> that nForce 4, 650, and 680 chipsets are prone. I'm sure there are
>>>> more.
>>>> I suspect that P35 and P38 chipsets do fine but I haven't heard any
>>>> reports. I also have not heard much about AMD64 based systems either,
>>>> which is probably good.
>>>
>>> My motherboard is an EPoX MF570sli, with AMD Athlon X2 5000+ CPU and 4
>>> GB
>>> PC6400 RAM, recently graded from 2 GB with identical DIMMS, describe by
>>> NewEgg as: OCZ Platinum DDR2 800 (PC6400) - SDRAM - 2 GB. The chipset
>>> is
>>> nVidia 570 SLI.
>>>
>>> When I boot, the first few lines of the first screen say:
>>> Main Processor : AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+, 2
>>> CPUs
>>> CPU Real Clock : 2600MHz(200x13.0)
>>> Memory Testing : 4194304K OK
>>> CPU0 Memory Information: DDR2 800 @ 371 Mhz, Dual Channel, 128-bit
>>> NVMM : 4.062.0704/24/06 Tcl :5 Trcd :5 Trp :5 Tras :15 (2T
>>> Timing)
>>>
>>> I can read some of that, but not all of it. I am particularly curious
>>> about that "DDR2 800 @ 371 Mhz". What does that mean? Do I care?
>>>
>>> RC
>>>
>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:FCA63B39-952A-4174-B67A-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Since that guarantees there are not four dimms, it works for
>>>> installation.
>>>> However, if the problem is caused by more than the storport.sys issue
>>>> adding a fourth dimm will fail. There is no one factor causing this.
>>>> It
>>>> is certain combinations of factors. Something like a triple witching
>>>> hour
>>>> sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>> The truth is that the engineering on consumer mobos right now is right
>>>> on
>>>> the edge when it comes supporting large amounts of ram. As ram speeds
>>>> increase the problems get more complex. Some mobos make it and some
>>>> don't. Some mobos just need the wrinkles worked out of the BIOS but
>>>> some
>>>> will never make it. At the heart of it all lies the mobo chipsets. I
>>>> know for sure that nForce 4, 650, and 680 chipsets are prone. I'm sure
>>>> there are more. I suspect that P35 and P38 chipsets do fine but I
>>>> haven't
>>>> heard any reports. I also have not heard much about AMD64 based systems
>>>> either, which is probably good.
>>>>
>>>> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news110B86B-7D9D-46CB-8F28-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Colin,
>>>>> My urban legend was based on the "Workaround" portion (page bottom) of
>>>>> this
>>>>> MS KB.
>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929777/en-us
>>>>>
>>>>> I still prefer your theory of the 4 d*mn dimm.
>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>
>>>>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Carlos, I suspect he is using 2x2GB dimms because he had 8GB and
>>>>>> reduced
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> to four. If so that should not be any problem at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with "4GB" doesn't exist. It's urban legend. It just so
>>>>>> happens that most people are using 1x1GB dimms and that fills the
>>>>>> fourth
>>>>>> dimm slot. It is the fourth dimm slot, not the amount of ram, which
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> issue if the ram is pc6400 with many mobos. But since the user had a
>>>>>> problem with "4GB" and isn't thinking "4 dimms" the urban legend
>>>>>> grows.
>>>>>> Mobos with nVidia chipsets appear to be especially prone to this. It
>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>> the amount of ram but the number of dimms in these machines. I call
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> fourth d*mn dimm effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have installed Vista x86 and x64 on my AMD64 Athlon x2 system from
>>>>>> day
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> of the beta without issues using 4x1GB pc6400 dimms but was never
>>>>>> able
>>>>>> to do
>>>>>> so on another box running a Core 2 Duo. One obvious difference is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> AMD
>>>>>> puts the memory contoller on the chip and Intel on the board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly it depends on specific hardware and I suspect that it comes
>>>>>> down
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> memory controllers that do 32bit dma. Pc5300 or pc6400 run at 667
>>>>>> seems
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be a key resolution. In any case, there is no hard and fast rule
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> Vista not installing on ram greater than any particular amount. In
>>>>>> fact
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> installed Vista Ultimate x64 on this box with 6GB installed (I too
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> of those fourth d*mn dimm mobos and haven't bothered clocking back
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> dram
>>>>>> speed).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the OP is only using 2 dimm slots then you may safely rule out the
>>>>>> amount
>>>>>> of ram as the issue. A bad stick is still possible but he has
>>>>>> probably
>>>>>> done
>>>>>> some swapping already and ruled that out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His issue is some other hardware issue perhaps, but nothing to do
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> amount of ram.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:E251978F-0B24-40D7-BFA7-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> > Hi,
>>>>>> > Install Vista with only 2 GB RAM present.
>>>>>> > Those BSOD's are a known issue with Vista installs on > 2 GB RAM.
>>>>>> > After you are done with the installation you can safely place the
>>>>>> > substracted 2 GB's in order to get your 4 GB back.
>>>>>> > Carlos
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > "M Skabialka" wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> Decided I needed a new PC, so bought and assembled all new
>>>>>> >> components
>>>>>> >> and
>>>>>> >> started to install Vista Business. The HDD is a 500GB SATA drive,
>>>>>> >> the
>>>>>> >> DVD/RW is SATA. 8 GB RAM, but took that down to 4 GB since it
>>>>>> >> isn't
>>>>>> >> Vista
>>>>>> >> 64bit edition..
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Anyway, Vista started to install but got a BSOD within a minute.
>>>>>> >> Checked
>>>>>> >> all hardware settings and tried again, and again. Every time it
>>>>>> >> gets
>>>>>> >> a
>>>>>> >> different STOP error. So used an XP CD to format the drive
>>>>>> >> figuring
>>>>>> >> that
>>>>>> >> was the problem. It finished formatting then said it couldn't
>>>>>> >> copy a
>>>>>> >> file
>>>>>> >> kodak??.??? Tried Vista again - BSOD.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Tried booting to the motherboard driver CD to find SATA drives but
>>>>>> >> my
>>>>>> >> only
>>>>>> >> options on boot up was to set up a RAID array. I'm happy with
>>>>>> >> just a
>>>>>> >> normal
>>>>>> >> non-RAID setup. There is no floppy drive. The Maxtor CD would not
>>>>>> >> boot
>>>>>> >> at
>>>>>> >> all.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> So, how do you set up Vista on a new SATA drive? Is there a set
>>>>>> >> of
>>>>>> >> steps
>>>>>> >> to
>>>>>> >> take that isn't listed in the drive or motherboard installation
>>>>>> >> booklets?
>

Now that it is up and running (see elsewhere in this posting) WiFi works
great also. Also I had the net cable connected during the entire install so
it would get updates as it was installing, with no problems, and then traded
it out for WiFi.

Mich

"M Skabialka" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> It has built in WiFi, so itsn't hard-wired to the high speed connection,
> but since Vista isn't running, neither is WiFi
> Thanks for the suggestion
>
> "alexB" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>I have a very narrow competence in your issue but let me throw in
>>something perhaps stupid but perhaps relevant. Make sure your high speed
>>connection is unplugged during the install until Vista starts asking for
>>it.
>>
>> "M Skabialka" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> It doesn't get to that point - I get the BSOD almost as soon as Vista
>>> starts to install. There is a white progress bar across the bottom,
>>> then sometimes it gets as far as the screen with a flag and a small
>>> progress bar (like when you boot your PC) and once I even got as far as
>>> the blue and green picture used as the default desktop background, but
>>> never got to any point where I am asked to install drivers or answer any
>>> prompts at all.
>>>
>>> So how else do you install SATA drivers?
>>>
>>> "Joe cann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> you need to load the sata drivers perhaps while vista is in the first
>>>> stages of its install
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "M Skabialka" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:O%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Decided I needed a new PC, so bought and assembled all new components
>>>>> and started to install Vista Business. The HDD is a 500GB SATA drive,
>>>>> the DVD/RW is SATA. 8 GB RAM, but took that down to 4 GB since it
>>>>> isn't Vista 64bit edition..
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, Vista started to install but got a BSOD within a minute.
>>>>> Checked all hardware settings and tried again, and again. Every time
>>>>> it gets a different STOP error. So used an XP CD to format the drive
>>>>> figuring that was the problem. It finished formatting then said it
>>>>> couldn't copy a file kodak??.??? Tried Vista again - BSOD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tried booting to the motherboard driver CD to find SATA drives but my
>>>>> only options on boot up was to set up a RAID array. I'm happy with
>>>>> just a normal non-RAID setup. There is no floppy drive. The Maxtor CD
>>>>> would not boot at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, how do you set up Vista on a new SATA drive? Is there a set of
>>>>> steps to take that isn't listed in the drive or motherboard
>>>>> installation booklets?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Main Processor : AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+, 2
CPUs
CPU Real Clock : 2600MHz(200x13.0)
Memory Testing : 4194304K OK
CPU0 Memory Information: DDR2 800 @ 371 Mhz, Dual Channel, 128-bit
NVMM : 4.062.0704/24/06 Tcl :5 Trcd :5 Trp :5 Tras :15 (2T
Timing)

It means that the AMD X2 5000+ is running at 2600MHz. It is known
as an odd multiplier processor because the multiplier to get the proper
clock is 13. (200 X 13 = 2600).

The memory needs 400 MHz, and to get that you need to divide
2600 by 6.5. But the memory controller in the 5000+ does not have any
fractional divisors.

Using a divisor of 6 would give a memory clock of 433, too high.
Using a divisor of 7 would give a memory clock of 371.4, the best
that you can do.

Only AMD X2 processors with clock frequencies evenly divisible
by 400 will run the memory at the rated speed.
For example, the 5200+ runs at 2800MHz, and runs
the memory at 2800 divided by 7.

This is fixed for the Phenom processors.

"R. C. White" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ef%23n$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi, Colin.
>
>> I don't see why 371 Mhz would be of concern.
>
> Not of concern. Just wondering what it means. I'm an accountant, not a
> techie, remember. You guys have taught me a lot, but I still hit terms
> and specs now and then that leave me a bit curious.
>
>> I think it is interesting that you are running an AMD64 cpu (which has
>> the memory controller onboard) and not experiencing any issues with 4
>> dimms.
>
> Yep. I just powered down, plugged in the 2 additional DIMMs and turned it
> back on. The 4 GB was immediately recognized by the BIOS and by Vista x64
> with no tweaking at all. The WEI didn't change, but that's because the
> RAM rating was already at 5.9. My lowest score is Graphics at 4.6, with
> my ATI Radeon X1600 Pro PCIe card. But I'm not a gamer, so that's OK. I
> had no problem watching the Packers/Giants game on Media Center last
> night. ;<)
>
>> It looks to me like you are enjoying one heck of a good computer.
>
> ;<) This is my third EPoX motherboard. They are not well known, but have
> always performed well for me. I have only one computer so I get to see
> just one new mobo about every 3 years and don't get to do much comparing,
> but I like this combination.
>
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
> (E-Mail Removed)
> Microsoft Windows MVP
> (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64)
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I take it you are wondering why you are not seeing "DDR2 800 @ 400 Mhz"
>> and if that is a problem. I don't see why 371 Mhz would be of concern.
>> Anyway the label DDR2 800 (or 400x2 if you prefer) is just a spec.
>> Operational ram speed would be optimized for the system.
>>
>> Most BIOS's (at least the ones that support overclocking) will let you
>> increase the dram speed (by incrementally increasing the memory voltage)
>> so I suppose you could do that. But I wouldn't. Let the system tune
>> itself as it wants.
>>
>> I think it is interesting that you are running an AMD64 cpu (which has
>> the memory controller onboard) and not experiencing any issues with 4
>> dimms. It bears out my suspicions. Your nVidia chipset is for AMD
>> processors and I still am not hearing of an issue with them. It seems to
>> be nVidia chipsets for Intel processors that I hear about. Or it may be
>> simply be that the memory controller is on the mobo with Intel
>> processors.
>>
>> It looks to me like you are enjoying one heck of a good computer.
>>
>> "R. C. White" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:789818E2-2ED9-4212-A0B4-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Hi, Colin.
>>>
>>> At the risk of digression... ;^}
>>>
>>> In a later post you said:
>>>>>> Clearly it depends on specific hardware and I suspect that it comes
>>>>>> down
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> memory controllers that do 32bit dma. Pc5300 or pc6400 run at 667
>>>>>> seems
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be a key resolution. In any case, there is no hard and fast rule
>>>>>> about
>>>
>>> And here:
>>>> make it. At the heart of it all lies the mobo chipsets. I know for
>>>> sure
>>>> that nForce 4, 650, and 680 chipsets are prone. I'm sure there are
>>>> more.
>>>> I suspect that P35 and P38 chipsets do fine but I haven't heard any
>>>> reports. I also have not heard much about AMD64 based systems either,
>>>> which is probably good.
>>>
>>> My motherboard is an EPoX MF570sli, with AMD Athlon X2 5000+ CPU and 4
>>> GB
>>> PC6400 RAM, recently graded from 2 GB with identical DIMMS, describe by
>>> NewEgg as: OCZ Platinum DDR2 800 (PC6400) - SDRAM - 2 GB. The chipset
>>> is
>>> nVidia 570 SLI.
>>>
>>> When I boot, the first few lines of the first screen say:
>>> Main Processor : AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+, 2
>>> CPUs
>>> CPU Real Clock : 2600MHz(200x13.0)
>>> Memory Testing : 4194304K OK
>>> CPU0 Memory Information: DDR2 800 @ 371 Mhz, Dual Channel, 128-bit
>>> NVMM : 4.062.0704/24/06 Tcl :5 Trcd :5 Trp :5 Tras :15 (2T
>>> Timing)
>>>
>>> I can read some of that, but not all of it. I am particularly curious
>>> about that "DDR2 800 @ 371 Mhz". What does that mean? Do I care?
>>>
>>> RC
>>>
>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:FCA63B39-952A-4174-B67A-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Since that guarantees there are not four dimms, it works for
>>>> installation.
>>>> However, if the problem is caused by more than the storport.sys issue
>>>> adding a fourth dimm will fail. There is no one factor causing this.
>>>> It
>>>> is certain combinations of factors. Something like a triple witching
>>>> hour
>>>> sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>> The truth is that the engineering on consumer mobos right now is right
>>>> on
>>>> the edge when it comes supporting large amounts of ram. As ram speeds
>>>> increase the problems get more complex. Some mobos make it and some
>>>> don't. Some mobos just need the wrinkles worked out of the BIOS but
>>>> some
>>>> will never make it. At the heart of it all lies the mobo chipsets. I
>>>> know for sure that nForce 4, 650, and 680 chipsets are prone. I'm sure
>>>> there are more. I suspect that P35 and P38 chipsets do fine but I
>>>> haven't
>>>> heard any reports. I also have not heard much about AMD64 based systems
>>>> either, which is probably good.
>>>>
>>>> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news110B86B-7D9D-46CB-8F28-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Colin,
>>>>> My urban legend was based on the "Workaround" portion (page bottom) of
>>>>> this
>>>>> MS KB.
>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929777/en-us
>>>>>
>>>>> I still prefer your theory of the 4 d*mn dimm.
>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>
>>>>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Carlos, I suspect he is using 2x2GB dimms because he had 8GB and
>>>>>> reduced
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> to four. If so that should not be any problem at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with "4GB" doesn't exist. It's urban legend. It just so
>>>>>> happens that most people are using 1x1GB dimms and that fills the
>>>>>> fourth
>>>>>> dimm slot. It is the fourth dimm slot, not the amount of ram, which
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> issue if the ram is pc6400 with many mobos. But since the user had a
>>>>>> problem with "4GB" and isn't thinking "4 dimms" the urban legend
>>>>>> grows.
>>>>>> Mobos with nVidia chipsets appear to be especially prone to this. It
>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>> the amount of ram but the number of dimms in these machines. I call
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> fourth d*mn dimm effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have installed Vista x86 and x64 on my AMD64 Athlon x2 system from
>>>>>> day
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> of the beta without issues using 4x1GB pc6400 dimms but was never
>>>>>> able
>>>>>> to do
>>>>>> so on another box running a Core 2 Duo. One obvious difference is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> AMD
>>>>>> puts the memory contoller on the chip and Intel on the board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly it depends on specific hardware and I suspect that it comes
>>>>>> down
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> memory controllers that do 32bit dma. Pc5300 or pc6400 run at 667
>>>>>> seems
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be a key resolution. In any case, there is no hard and fast rule
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> Vista not installing on ram greater than any particular amount. In
>>>>>> fact
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> installed Vista Ultimate x64 on this box with 6GB installed (I too
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> of those fourth d*mn dimm mobos and haven't bothered clocking back
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> dram
>>>>>> speed).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the OP is only using 2 dimm slots then you may safely rule out the
>>>>>> amount
>>>>>> of ram as the issue. A bad stick is still possible but he has
>>>>>> probably
>>>>>> done
>>>>>> some swapping already and ruled that out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His issue is some other hardware issue perhaps, but nothing to do
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> amount of ram.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:E251978F-0B24-40D7-BFA7-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> > Hi,
>>>>>> > Install Vista with only 2 GB RAM present.
>>>>>> > Those BSOD's are a known issue with Vista installs on > 2 GB RAM.
>>>>>> > After you are done with the installation you can safely place the
>>>>>> > substracted 2 GB's in order to get your 4 GB back.
>>>>>> > Carlos
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > "M Skabialka" wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> Decided I needed a new PC, so bought and assembled all new
>>>>>> >> components
>>>>>> >> and
>>>>>> >> started to install Vista Business. The HDD is a 500GB SATA drive,
>>>>>> >> the
>>>>>> >> DVD/RW is SATA. 8 GB RAM, but took that down to 4 GB since it
>>>>>> >> isn't
>>>>>> >> Vista
>>>>>> >> 64bit edition..
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Anyway, Vista started to install but got a BSOD within a minute.
>>>>>> >> Checked
>>>>>> >> all hardware settings and tried again, and again. Every time it
>>>>>> >> gets
>>>>>> >> a
>>>>>> >> different STOP error. So used an XP CD to format the drive
>>>>>> >> figuring
>>>>>> >> that
>>>>>> >> was the problem. It finished formatting then said it couldn't
>>>>>> >> copy a
>>>>>> >> file
>>>>>> >> kodak??.??? Tried Vista again - BSOD.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Tried booting to the motherboard driver CD to find SATA drives but
>>>>>> >> my
>>>>>> >> only
>>>>>> >> options on boot up was to set up a RAID array. I'm happy with
>>>>>> >> just a
>>>>>> >> normal
>>>>>> >> non-RAID setup. There is no floppy drive. The Maxtor CD would not
>>>>>> >> boot
>>>>>> >> at
>>>>>> >> all.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> So, how do you set up Vista on a new SATA drive? Is there a set
>>>>>> >> of
>>>>>> >> steps
>>>>>> >> to
>>>>>> >> take that isn't listed in the drive or motherboard installation
>>>>>> >> booklets?
>

Hi, CM.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't completely understand it yet, but
that's close enough for a non-techie like me. ;^}

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(E-Mail Removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64)

"CMShepard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Main Processor : AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+, 2
> CPUs
> CPU Real Clock : 2600MHz(200x13.0)
> Memory Testing : 4194304K OK
> CPU0 Memory Information: DDR2 800 @ 371 Mhz, Dual Channel, 128-bit
> NVMM : 4.062.0704/24/06 Tcl :5 Trcd :5 Trp :5 Tras :15 (2T
> Timing)
>
> It means that the AMD X2 5000+ is running at 2600MHz. It is known
> as an odd multiplier processor because the multiplier to get the proper
> clock is 13. (200 X 13 = 2600).
>
> The memory needs 400 MHz, and to get that you need to divide
> 2600 by 6.5. But the memory controller in the 5000+ does not have any
> fractional divisors.
>
> Using a divisor of 6 would give a memory clock of 433, too high.
> Using a divisor of 7 would give a memory clock of 371.4, the best
> that you can do.
>
> Only AMD X2 processors with clock frequencies evenly divisible
> by 400 will run the memory at the rated speed.
> For example, the 5200+ runs at 2800MHz, and runs
> the memory at 2800 divided by 7.
>
> This is fixed for the Phenom processors.
>
> "R. C. White" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ef%23n$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi, Colin.
>>
>>> I don't see why 371 Mhz would be of concern.
>>
>> Not of concern. Just wondering what it means. I'm an accountant, not a
>> techie, remember. You guys have taught me a lot, but I still hit terms
>> and specs now and then that leave me a bit curious.
>>
>>> I think it is interesting that you are running an AMD64 cpu (which has
>>> the memory controller onboard) and not experiencing any issues with 4
>>> dimms.
>>
>> Yep. I just powered down, plugged in the 2 additional DIMMs and turned
>> it back on. The 4 GB was immediately recognized by the BIOS and by Vista
>> x64 with no tweaking at all. The WEI didn't change, but that's because
>> the RAM rating was already at 5.9. My lowest score is Graphics at 4.6,
>> with my ATI Radeon X1600 Pro PCIe card. But I'm not a gamer, so that's
>> OK. I had no problem watching the Packers/Giants game on Media Center
>> last night. ;<)
>>
>>> It looks to me like you are enjoying one heck of a good computer.
>>
>> ;<) This is my third EPoX motherboard. They are not well known, but
>> have always performed well for me. I have only one computer so I get to
>> see just one new mobo about every 3 years and don't get to do much
>> comparing, but I like this combination.
>>
>> RC
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> I take it you are wondering why you are not seeing "DDR2 800 @ 400 Mhz"
>>> and if that is a problem. I don't see why 371 Mhz would be of concern.
>>> Anyway the label DDR2 800 (or 400x2 if you prefer) is just a spec.
>>> Operational ram speed would be optimized for the system.
>>>
>>> Most BIOS's (at least the ones that support overclocking) will let you
>>> increase the dram speed (by incrementally increasing the memory voltage)
>>> so I suppose you could do that. But I wouldn't. Let the system tune
>>> itself as it wants.
>>>
>>> I think it is interesting that you are running an AMD64 cpu (which has
>>> the memory controller onboard) and not experiencing any issues with 4
>>> dimms. It bears out my suspicions. Your nVidia chipset is for AMD
>>> processors and I still am not hearing of an issue with them. It seems
>>> to be nVidia chipsets for Intel processors that I hear about. Or it may
>>> be simply be that the memory controller is on the mobo with Intel
>>> processors.
>>>
>>> It looks to me like you are enjoying one heck of a good computer.
>>>
>>> "R. C. White" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:789818E2-2ED9-4212-A0B4-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Hi, Colin.
>>>>
>>>> At the risk of digression... ;^}
>>>>
>>>> In a later post you said:
>>>>>>> Clearly it depends on specific hardware and I suspect that it comes
>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> memory controllers that do 32bit dma. Pc5300 or pc6400 run at 667
>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> be a key resolution. In any case, there is no hard and fast rule
>>>>>>> about
>>>>
>>>> And here:
>>>>> make it. At the heart of it all lies the mobo chipsets. I know for
>>>>> sure
>>>>> that nForce 4, 650, and 680 chipsets are prone. I'm sure there are
>>>>> more.
>>>>> I suspect that P35 and P38 chipsets do fine but I haven't heard any
>>>>> reports. I also have not heard much about AMD64 based systems either,
>>>>> which is probably good.
>>>>
>>>> My motherboard is an EPoX MF570sli, with AMD Athlon X2 5000+ CPU and 4
>>>> GB
>>>> PC6400 RAM, recently graded from 2 GB with identical DIMMS, describe by
>>>> NewEgg as: OCZ Platinum DDR2 800 (PC6400) - SDRAM - 2 GB. The chipset
>>>> is
>>>> nVidia 570 SLI.
>>>>
>>>> When I boot, the first few lines of the first screen say:
>>>> Main Processor : AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+, 2
>>>> CPUs
>>>> CPU Real Clock : 2600MHz(200x13.0)
>>>> Memory Testing : 4194304K OK
>>>> CPU0 Memory Information: DDR2 800 @ 371 Mhz, Dual Channel, 128-bit
>>>> NVMM : 4.062.0704/24/06 Tcl :5 Trcd :5 Trp :5 Tras :15 (2T
>>>> Timing)
>>>>
>>>> I can read some of that, but not all of it. I am particularly curious
>>>> about that "DDR2 800 @ 371 Mhz". What does that mean? Do I care?
>>>>
>>>> RC
>>>>
>>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:FCA63B39-952A-4174-B67A-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Since that guarantees there are not four dimms, it works for
>>>>> installation.
>>>>> However, if the problem is caused by more than the storport.sys issue
>>>>> adding a fourth dimm will fail. There is no one factor causing this.
>>>>> It
>>>>> is certain combinations of factors. Something like a triple witching
>>>>> hour
>>>>> sort of thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The truth is that the engineering on consumer mobos right now is right
>>>>> on
>>>>> the edge when it comes supporting large amounts of ram. As ram speeds
>>>>> increase the problems get more complex. Some mobos make it and some
>>>>> don't. Some mobos just need the wrinkles worked out of the BIOS but
>>>>> some
>>>>> will never make it. At the heart of it all lies the mobo chipsets. I
>>>>> know for sure that nForce 4, 650, and 680 chipsets are prone. I'm
>>>>> sure
>>>>> there are more. I suspect that P35 and P38 chipsets do fine but I
>>>>> haven't
>>>>> heard any reports. I also have not heard much about AMD64 based
>>>>> systems
>>>>> either, which is probably good.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news110B86B-7D9D-46CB-8F28-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> Colin,
>>>>>> My urban legend was based on the "Workaround" portion (page bottom)
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> MS KB.
>>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929777/en-us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still prefer your theory of the 4 d*mn dimm.
>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carlos, I suspect he is using 2x2GB dimms because he had 8GB and
>>>>>>> reduced
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> to four. If so that should not be any problem at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with "4GB" doesn't exist. It's urban legend. It just
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> happens that most people are using 1x1GB dimms and that fills the
>>>>>>> fourth
>>>>>>> dimm slot. It is the fourth dimm slot, not the amount of ram, which
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> issue if the ram is pc6400 with many mobos. But since the user had
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> problem with "4GB" and isn't thinking "4 dimms" the urban legend
>>>>>>> grows.
>>>>>>> Mobos with nVidia chipsets appear to be especially prone to this.
>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>> the amount of ram but the number of dimms in these machines. I call
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> fourth d*mn dimm effect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have installed Vista x86 and x64 on my AMD64 Athlon x2 system from
>>>>>>> day
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> of the beta without issues using 4x1GB pc6400 dimms but was never
>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>> so on another box running a Core 2 Duo. One obvious difference is
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> AMD
>>>>>>> puts the memory contoller on the chip and Intel on the board.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly it depends on specific hardware and I suspect that it comes
>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> memory controllers that do 32bit dma. Pc5300 or pc6400 run at 667
>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> be a key resolution. In any case, there is no hard and fast rule
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> Vista not installing on ram greater than any particular amount. In
>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> installed Vista Ultimate x64 on this box with 6GB installed (I too
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> of those fourth d*mn dimm mobos and haven't bothered clocking back
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> dram
>>>>>>> speed).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the OP is only using 2 dimm slots then you may safely rule out
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>> of ram as the issue. A bad stick is still possible but he has
>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>> some swapping already and ruled that out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His issue is some other hardware issue perhaps, but nothing to do
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> amount of ram.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just a thought.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:E251978F-0B24-40D7-BFA7-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> > Hi,
>>>>>>> > Install Vista with only 2 GB RAM present.
>>>>>>> > Those BSOD's are a known issue with Vista installs on > 2 GB RAM.
>>>>>>> > After you are done with the installation you can safely place the
>>>>>>> > substracted 2 GB's in order to get your 4 GB back.
>>>>>>> > Carlos
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > "M Skabialka" wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> Decided I needed a new PC, so bought and assembled all new
>>>>>>> >> components
>>>>>>> >> and
>>>>>>> >> started to install Vista Business. The HDD is a 500GB SATA
>>>>>>> >> drive,
>>>>>>> >> the
>>>>>>> >> DVD/RW is SATA. 8 GB RAM, but took that down to 4 GB since it
>>>>>>> >> isn't
>>>>>>> >> Vista
>>>>>>> >> 64bit edition..
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Anyway, Vista started to install but got a BSOD within a minute.
>>>>>>> >> Checked
>>>>>>> >> all hardware settings and tried again, and again. Every time it
>>>>>>> >> gets
>>>>>>> >> a
>>>>>>> >> different STOP error. So used an XP CD to format the drive
>>>>>>> >> figuring
>>>>>>> >> that
>>>>>>> >> was the problem. It finished formatting then said it couldn't
>>>>>>> >> copy a
>>>>>>> >> file
>>>>>>> >> kodak??.??? Tried Vista again - BSOD.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Tried booting to the motherboard driver CD to find SATA drives
>>>>>>> >> but my
>>>>>>> >> only
>>>>>>> >> options on boot up was to set up a RAID array. I'm happy with
>>>>>>> >> just a
>>>>>>> >> normal
>>>>>>> >> non-RAID setup. There is no floppy drive. The Maxtor CD would
>>>>>>> >> not
>>>>>>> >> boot
>>>>>>> >> at
>>>>>>> >> all.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> So, how do you set up Vista on a new SATA drive? Is there a set
>>>>>>> >> of
>>>>>>> >> steps
>>>>>>> >> to
>>>>>>> >> take that isn't listed in the drive or motherboard installation
>>>>>>> >> booklets?