u/g W2K to W3KE - W3KE recognizes half the RAM

[aevans1108]

Greetings

There doesn't seem to be an equivalent Windows 2003 Server hardware
group. If this in an inappropriate place to post with this question,
I'd appreciate it if someone would give me a shove in the right
direction.

I recently upgraded my laptop (Sony Vaio PCG-FX270, PIII 850MHz, 512MB
RAM) from W2KASSP4 to W3KE. After performing the upgrade, System
Properties only recognizes 256MB of the 512MB of RAM installed in the
system. (There are two DIMMS. They are 256MB each.)

I've tried swapping the slots that the chips are in to no avail. Also,
if either chip is placed in bank 0 by itself, the system still only
recognizes 256MB of RAM. (FYI: If either chip is placed in bank 1, the
system doesn't even POST.)

If I call Sony about this, an idiot with a script will read the
following words to me: "Windows 2003 Server Enterprise is not supported
on your model." All subsequent questions, no matter how cleverly they
are worded will be answered with the same sentence.

The likelihood that anyone on this group knows exactly what the problem
is given my particular hardware is slight. Nonetheless, I'm hoping
that someone out there might be able to theorize about the differences
between Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2003 Server. That is, why
would W3K fail to recognize RAM that W2K recognizes just fine? How is
RAM recognized? Does it use a standard kernel-mode driver or is it
some other facility? (Links to information on how RAM is recognized
under each OS are welcome.)

It appears to me that W3KE isn't recognizing bank 1 (ie: the second
bank). Where would I go in Device Manager to see an enumeration of
memory banks and what they contain? Or would I go somewhere else to
see this information?

In case its helpful, the details on my RAM are:

Two (2), 256MB PC133-compliant Non-ECC CL3 SODIMMs by Viking

Any and all responses, including guesses are certainly welcome. Thanks
in advance for you time.

Tony

 

[Pavel A.]

Greetings

There doesn't seem to be an equivalent Windows 2003 Server hardware
group.

Try microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware as XP is closest to w2k3

If I call Sony about this, an idiot with a script will read the
following words to me: "Windows 2003 Server Enterprise is not supported
on your model." All subsequent questions, no matter how cleverly they
are worded will be answered with the same sentence.

This is reasonable because Servers have specific h/w requirements and
even different logo testing program.

Before server 2003, try to install on this machine XP SP2.
If it will show same problem, your chances for remedy would be better.

--PA

 

[Leonard Severt [MSFT]]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Greetings

There doesn't seem to be an equivalent Windows 2003 Server hardware
group. If this in an inappropriate place to post with this question,
I'd appreciate it if someone would give me a shove in the right
direction.

I recently upgraded my laptop (Sony Vaio PCG-FX270, PIII 850MHz, 512MB
RAM) from W2KASSP4 to W3KE. After performing the upgrade, System
Properties only recognizes 256MB of the 512MB of RAM installed in the
system. (There are two DIMMS. They are 256MB each.)

I've tried swapping the slots that the chips are in to no avail. Also,
if either chip is placed in bank 0 by itself, the system still only
recognizes 256MB of RAM. (FYI: If either chip is placed in bank 1, the
system doesn't even POST.)

If I call Sony about this, an idiot with a script will read the
following words to me: "Windows 2003 Server Enterprise is not supported
on your model." All subsequent questions, no matter how cleverly they
are worded will be answered with the same sentence.

The likelihood that anyone on this group knows exactly what the problem
is given my particular hardware is slight. Nonetheless, I'm hoping
that someone out there might be able to theorize about the differences
between Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2003 Server. That is, why
would W3K fail to recognize RAM that W2K recognizes just fine? How is
RAM recognized? Does it use a standard kernel-mode driver or is it
some other facility? (Links to information on how RAM is recognized
under each OS are welcome.)

It appears to me that W3KE isn't recognizing bank 1 (ie: the second
bank). Where would I go in Device Manager to see an enumeration of
memory banks and what they contain? Or would I go somewhere else to
see this information?

In case its helpful, the details on my RAM are:

Two (2), 256MB PC133-compliant Non-ECC CL3 SODIMMs by Viking

Any and all responses, including guesses are certainly welcome. Thanks
in advance for you time.

Tony

There really is no difference in how Windows 2000 and Windows 2003
recognize memory. The same mechanism is used in the HAL interacting with
the hardware and Kernal allocating the memory to Windows. They support the
same HAL types. Windows doesn't directly know anything about memory banks
and doesn't care if it is 1 chip or 4 chips.

I would look at a couple of things. How much memory is reported my
MSInfo32? In Device Manager what is listed un Computer? What line do you
have in your boot.ini file for loading Windows? What happens in safe mode?

Leonard Severt

Microsoft Enterprise Support

 

[aevans1108]

Thank you Pavel & Leonard for your responses.


Pavel:

Sony will read that off of their script if I try to run anything
besides Windows ME on this box, even though they shipped a nearly
identical box that ran W2K Pro. In my opinion, if I'm willing to pay
for support, they should work with me to solve my problem, regardless
of what it is.

I will consider installing Windows XP SP2 if I can find more
information on this problem. I am including
microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware in this post, per your
recommendation.


Leonard:

MSInfo32 reports 256MB of RAM.

The only node under Computer in Device Manager is "Advanced
Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI)". The properties sheet of the
Computer node itself is blank. The properties sheet of the ACPI node
contains nothing pertaining to RAM.

The contents of my boot.ini file are as follows:

[boot loader]
timeout=10
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Windows Server 2003,
Enterprise" /fastdetect

Both MsInfo32 and My Computer properties report 256MB of physical
memory even when running in safe mode.

For those in microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware, here is my original
post:

Greetings

There doesn't seem to be an equivalent Windows 2003 Server hardware
group. If this in an inappropriate place to post with this question,
I'd appreciate it if someone would give me a shove in the right
direction.

I recently upgraded my laptop (Sony Vaio PCG-FX270, PIII 850MHz, 512MB
RAM) from W2KASSP4 to W3KE. After performing the upgrade, System
Properties only recognizes 256MB of the 512MB of RAM installed in the
system. (There are two DIMMS. They are 256MB each.)

I've tried swapping the slots that the chips are in to no avail. Also,
if either chip is placed in bank 0 by itself, the system still only
recognizes 256MB of RAM. (FYI: If either chip is placed in bank 1, the
system doesn't even POST.)

If I call Sony about this, an idiot with a script will read the
following words to me: "Windows 2003 Server Enterprise is not supported
on your model." All subsequent questions, no matter how cleverly they
are worded will be answered with the same sentence.

The likelihood that anyone on this group knows exactly what the problem
is given my particular hardware is slight. Nonetheless, I'm hoping
that someone out there might be able to theorize about the differences
between Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2003 Server. That is, why
would W3K fail to recognize RAM that W2K recognizes just fine? How is
RAM recognized? Does it use a standard kernel-mode driver or is it
some other facility? (Links to information on how RAM is recognized
under each OS are welcome.)

It appears to me that W3KE isn't recognizing bank 1 (ie: the second
bank). Where would I go in Device Manager to see an enumeration of
memory banks and what they contain? Or would I go somewhere else to
see this information?

In case its helpful, the details on my RAM are:

Two (2), 256MB PC133-compliant Non-ECC CL3 SODIMMs by Viking

Any and all responses, including guesses are certainly welcome. Thanks
in advance for you time.

Tony

 

[Dan Seur]

Tony - just a thought, and it may be off base. I don't know what
you could do about it, if this is the problem, anyway:

As you probably know, W2k is very demanding of such characteristics as
RAM latency than simpler systems like WinME and DOS. W2k will fail if
RAM timings are outside rather strict parameters, and timings depend on
a number of factors in addition to the RAM itself - such as bus lengths
on the motherboard. It is not unusual for a machine designed for WinME
to be unable to run W2k.

I've never heard of a situation where W2k will run but a newer version
(as in your case) fails but, barring some unrelated but coincident
failure of that second RAM slot, I suppose it's possible that some newer
version of the W2k family has even more stringent RAM tolerance
requirements. Perhaps, if your machine was actually designed to ME
specs, it's been a fluke all along that W2k would run. Not a happy thought.

Just determining whether that's the issue may not be possible without
access to privy information from Microsoft and Sony both...so as I say
even if this speculation is correct, it probably doesn't help.

I'll be over here wondering why I saw fit to post this...

Thank you Pavel & Leonard for your responses.


Pavel:

Sony will read that off of their script if I try to run anything
besides Windows ME on this box, even though they shipped a nearly
identical box that ran W2K Pro. In my opinion, if I'm willing to pay
for support, they should work with me to solve my problem, regardless
of what it is.

I will consider installing Windows XP SP2 if I can find more
information on this problem. I am including
microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware in this post, per your
recommendation.


Leonard:

MSInfo32 reports 256MB of RAM.

The only node under Computer in Device Manager is "Advanced
Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI)". The properties sheet of the
Computer node itself is blank. The properties sheet of the ACPI node
contains nothing pertaining to RAM.

The contents of my boot.ini file are as follows:

[boot loader]
timeout=10
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Windows Server 2003,
Enterprise" /fastdetect

Both MsInfo32 and My Computer properties report 256MB of physical
memory even when running in safe mode.

For those in microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware, here is my original
post:

Greetings

There doesn't seem to be an equivalent Windows 2003 Server hardware
group. If this in an inappropriate place to post with this question,
I'd appreciate it if someone would give me a shove in the right
direction.

I recently upgraded my laptop (Sony Vaio PCG-FX270, PIII 850MHz, 512MB
RAM) from W2KASSP4 to W3KE. After performing the upgrade, System
Properties only recognizes 256MB of the 512MB of RAM installed in the
system. (There are two DIMMS. They are 256MB each.)

I've tried swapping the slots that the chips are in to no avail. Also,
if either chip is placed in bank 0 by itself, the system still only
recognizes 256MB of RAM. (FYI: If either chip is placed in bank 1, the
system doesn't even POST.)

If I call Sony about this, an idiot with a script will read the
following words to me: "Windows 2003 Server Enterprise is not supported
on your model." All subsequent questions, no matter how cleverly they
are worded will be answered with the same sentence.

The likelihood that anyone on this group knows exactly what the problem
is given my particular hardware is slight. Nonetheless, I'm hoping
that someone out there might be able to theorize about the differences
between Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2003 Server. That is, why
would W3K fail to recognize RAM that W2K recognizes just fine? How is
RAM recognized? Does it use a standard kernel-mode driver or is it
some other facility? (Links to information on how RAM is recognized
under each OS are welcome.)

It appears to me that W3KE isn't recognizing bank 1 (ie: the second
bank). Where would I go in Device Manager to see an enumeration of
memory banks and what they contain? Or would I go somewhere else to
see this information?

In case its helpful, the details on my RAM are:

Two (2), 256MB PC133-compliant Non-ECC CL3 SODIMMs by Viking

Any and all responses, including guesses are certainly welcome. Thanks
in advance for you time.

Tony

 

[aevans1108]

Not at all, Dan. That's as good a theory as any. In fact, it made me
go in to the CMOS setup screen to see if there was a way to adjust
memory timing and guess what I discovered? CMOS setup only recognizes
256MB as well.

I didn't check the CMOS before my original posting because I checked it
when I first installed the RAM a year ago and it said 512MB.

Bank 1 must have failed either before I upgraded or after and I didn't
notice it until after. And of course, my natural inclination was to
blame Windows.

<sigh>

I'm really sorry to all of you who took the time to post answers to my
ill-conceived question. I should have been more thorough in checking
my system before posting. :-(

Thank you all again for your time.

Tony

--------------------
Dan's Message:

Tony - just a thought, and it may be off base. I don't know what
you could do about it, if this is the problem, anyway:

As you probably know, W2k is very demanding of such characteristics as
RAM latency than simpler systems like WinME and DOS. W2k will fail if
RAM timings are outside rather strict parameters, and timings depend on

a number of factors in addition to the RAM itself - such as bus lengths

on the motherboard. It is not unusual for a machine designed for WinME
to be unable to run W2k.

I've never heard of a situation where W2k will run but a newer version
(as in your case) fails but, barring some unrelated but coincident
failure of that second RAM slot, I suppose it's possible that some
newer
version of the W2k family has even more stringent RAM tolerance
requirements. Perhaps, if your machine was actually designed to ME
specs, it's been a fluke all along that W2k would run. Not a happy
thought.

Just determining whether that's the issue may not be possible without
access to privy information from Microsoft and Sony both...so as I say
even if this speculation is correct, it probably doesn't help.
I'll be over here wondering why I saw fit to post this...

 

[Dan Seur]

Tony - no sorrow necessary, it has been an interesting thread. Without
rereading all your posts I can't recall whether you've said BIOS sees
all RAM in each case, but there's another possibility: IF there's any
way in BIOS to adjust clock timings, you might try slowing things down
and observing any effect.

AND if the board specs permit, and you can arrange it, you might try a
512MB RAM card in slot 0 as well.

 

[aevans1108]

Hello Dan

This BIOS is deliberately created to be very "consumery". Nothing so
sophisticated as clock timings are available. Also, the max size a
DIMM can be is 256 MB on this system.

<OT>

This is a Sony Vaio PCG-FX270 notebook (came with WME). There was also
a PCG-FX270K available (note the 'K') which came with W2KP on it. The
reason I bought the ME version is because at the time I had an MSDN
subscription and didn't want to pay the extra $100 when I already had
W2K. Little did I know that they had a subtle change in the BIOS on
the K that allowed it to run W2KP as well as WME, while the plain
version that I bought would only run WME. When they finally made the
BIOS upgrade available to run W2KP on my computer, I wasn't able to use
it because it required that the system have the RAM that it came with
in it before you flashed it and I had lost those modules.

Anyway, I think Sony may have done this to me three years ago when I
sent the system in for warranty repair of the DVD drive. At that time,
I asked them to flash the BIOS to support W2KP, which they typically
won't do for a customer. I assumed that they probably had RAM modules
sitting around at the factory that they could use.

The BIOS did indeed come back flashed. In fact, they installed an
*illegal* version of W2KP on the system, which was running fine. (I
made an image of the system with Norton Ghost before I blew it away in
case I ever needed to prove anything. I wanted W2KAS anyway.) Also,
checking the BIOS now, the system reports that it is a PCG-FX270K
instead of a PCG-FX270.

It's too late to prove it now, but I suspect they flashed it with the
wrong RAM in it themselves and now the BIOS is confused. Since I
didn't check the unit over when I got it back from warranty repair, I
can only assume this is what happened. I suppose it is also possible
that bank 1 could have spontaneously failed, but since the machine is
on all the time, you'd think I would have noticed the failure.

Anyway, since they would never admit to this (even though you can find
others on the web who have experienced it with a similar model, the
PCG-FX101), and the unit is out of warranty, they would undoubtedly
charge me $700 to replace the main board, which is ridiculous.

This system has given me no end of grief. First, the DVD/CDR failed,
then the backlight, which I had to replace myself (can you say "wrong
sized bulb, electrical tape and solder"?) and now this... and getting a
first tier Sony support person to escalate you to someone who is
allowed to think for themselves is like pulling teeth out of a live
wart hog with your bare hands. They also wouldn't ship it to me with
the RAM maxed out when I bought it. I had to order it with their
default configuration of 192MB, then replace both modules myself. (You
know how much notebook RAM costs, right? What a waste of money.)

I won't so much as buy a toothpick from Sony ever again. Their
hardware sucks and so does their support. My next notebook is going to
be from Dell. I don't know what their support is like, but at least
they're cheap, so if this sort of thing happens again, I can just throw
the freaking thing in the garbage.
</OT>

Anyway, thanks again for the suggestions.

Tony

 

[Dan Seur]

Tony - what a jeremiad! I look askance at all Sony products now, based
on support experience for various audio appliances over the years,
though I don't buy PCs, ever, always assemble them, did so even back
when I was an IBMer. Started doing that after the PC-AT days, and
discovering the AT would run almost twice as fast with a different
plug-in crystal. Mumpf. Laptops of course are a different story.

Sounds like a dead end, sadly. Unless some Sony tech manual has
directions for accessing some hidden BIOS settings. I've seen that, on
Compaq machines at a local museum that wouldn't run NT3.51 as delivered
but would (after I cajoled a Compaq support guy into divulging a secret
or two.) But it sounds like you've likely been down that path.

There are used laptop shops, it's a big business. Somewhere you might
find a mobo for less than $700...a lot less.

 

[aevans1108]

<OT>

Yes, I'm known for my epistles.

Yes, I build my own PCs as well. It's the only way to be sure that
everything is on the HAL. (As you say, notebooks are a different
story, though I've heard of people building those as well.)

Yes, I've gotten the occassional Sony person (a manager at their
factory repair center comes to mind) to at least admit that they aren't
allowed to admit some things... but useful information? No...

I'll look around for a used mobo. May be I can find the one that went
with the 290, which had a 1GHz processor in it... New mobos from third
parties are comparable to the price of having Sony do the "repair", but
I honestly hadn't considered a used one...

</OT>

 

[aevans1108]

I meant HCL, not HAL.