cool. I'll check it out. Quick Tech Pro is made by the same people.
I like it because it can test more then just memory. Besides, I've seen
it identify single bad sectors. Pretty impressive and saves a lot fo
time/money in a production environment.
Abe
Linux Tests wrote:
>
> Actually.... RAM Stress Test is able to correctly identify bad modules
> better than Quick Tech Pro. This is a 35 K program that was originally
> shareware until the owners figured out that it is better than using a $25,000
> darkhorse tester ;-) Micron even tried to purchase the code because they
> realized that compatibililty of memory modules and timing can also be tested
> with RST.
>
> http://www.uxd.com
>
> I've used RST for several years - and have been able to stop all DOA
> shipments of RAM (company I worked for shipped GB of memory daily plus built
> systems with GB of memory.).
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, you wrote:
> ##regrettably that tech is misinformed. In my time as a pc repair tech I
> ##saw many sticks of ram that passed the boot test put were infact bad.
> ##Quick tech pro is one of the best memory testers you'll find. It
> ##actually test's most of the hardware in your system. Quick tech can
> ##identify a single bad sector in ram.
> ##
> ##Good luck
> ##
> ##
> ##Abe
> ##
> ##
> ##
> ##> "Myers, Dennis R NWO" wrote:
> ##>
> ##> I've been told by local computer techs that if your bios sees the ram
> ##> at bootup ,( in other words detects it and counts it off on the first
> ##> screen that shows your primary and secondary IDE devices and you can
> ##> hit del to get to bios) then the ram memory is good and should be
> ##> functional. I am not a technician so I am relying on their advice.
> ##>
> ##> -----Original Message-----
> ##> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ##> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson
> ##> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:31 PM
> ##> To: LinuxNewbie (E-mail)
> ##> Subject: [newbie] Testing for bad RAM
> ##>
> ##> I am suspicious that my RAM is bad. Is there anyway in linux that I
> ##> can
> ##> confirm this?
