T
Trent
Settle *down* Beavis. Your blood pressure spike probably
came close to blowing your pointy head clean off your shoulders!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Settle *down* Beavis. Your blood pressure spike probably
came close to blowing your pointy head clean off your shoulders!
G
George Macdonald
No, but I tell ya what. You go right on thinking that when a motherboard
spec says it supports single and double sided it means where they're
located on the module even though the motherboard electronics couldn't care
less nor tell where they were even if it did. No skin off my nose.
If you're using a motherboard "spec" as your reference I err, think I see
your problem. The source of your persistent "boo-boos" is becoming clear.
This may come as a shock to you but some of us are able to handle more than
'one' concept at a time. Explaining what was meant by 'high density' was
the x4 topic and that was the ONLY thing involving x4. The rest,
single/double sided and the BH6 memory issue, were different subjects.
You were the one who introduced the BH6 issue... which is now apparently
irrelevant to the "topic". said:No, they're 'lost' in your obstinate, single minded, head that's so
obsessed with trying to 'one up' people
When you post garbage as advice, you're going to get corrected here - like
it or not!
I've told you three times now that the ONLY reason for my "btw" on the BX
data sheet was to point out that THEY TOO use the term single and double
sided.
The writers of the 440BX chipset doc could not possibly have predicted that
some scoundrel DIMM "mfr" was going to produce a double sided, single rank,
non-conforming POS. Fortunately, to avoid further confusion, the term
single/dual-rank seems to be the preferred current terminology.
No doubt.
Thank you for at least finally getting to 256 in the one socket. That was
the original point.
If would have been easier if you had not used the example of 3x256MB DIMMs
not working whereas 3x128MB did in your wretched BH6.<shrug>
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
G
George Macdonald
Settle *down* Beavis. Your blood pressure spike probably
came close to blowing your pointy head clean off your shoulders!
Oh look, an anonymous jab - how clever and original and err, creative?
Here ya go:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&e=2&u=/nm/20041210/hl_nm/surgery_penis_dc
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
D
David Maynard
George said:If you're using a motherboard "spec" as your reference I err, think I see
your problem. The source of your persistent "boo-boos" is becoming clear.
That's cute coming from someone with no sources at all.
But no, I provided multiple memory manufacturers, motherboard
manufacturers, and chipset makers, in the form of Intel in the BX data
sheets, as sources.
You were the one who introduced the BH6 issue... which is now apparently
irrelevant to the "topic".<shrug>
Yes I did and, as I just mentioned, some of us are able to handle more than
one thought in a message. The secret to it is reading the text that goes
with it; like, in that case, the sentence in reply to the recommendation to
use an 'online memory selector' saying "I've noted they're not always
right" followed by the BH6 example.
Most folks, but not you, of course, would piece together the sentences all
in the one paragraph, in reply to the statement right above it, and gather
"oh, he's providing an example of how the online memory selectors may not
always be right."
When you post garbage as advice, you're going to get corrected here - like
it or not!
I have no problem with corrections that are correct and, who knows, maybe
someday you'll find one. What I do have a problem with is your inability to
even read what's written, much less get any of it right.
The writers of the 440BX chipset doc could not possibly have predicted that
some scoundrel DIMM "mfr" was going to produce a double sided, single rank,
non-conforming POS.
That is why understanding what was, and is, meant by the term "double
sided" is important. The 'coincidence' of it also being physically 'double
sided' (which inspired the unfortunate terminology) along with two ranks no
longer applies.
Fortunately, to avoid further confusion, the term
single/dual-rank seems to be the preferred current terminology.
That might be fine, assuming everyone uses it, for the 'future' but there
are thousands upon thousands of existing instruction pages using the older
term.
If would have been easier if you had not used the example of 3x256MB DIMMs
not working whereas 3x128MB did in your wretched BH6.<shrug>
Again, if you ever paid attention to what was written you'd know I provided
both examples and a 'single' DIMM was the first.
T
Trent
Oh look, an anonymous jab - how clever and original and err, creative?
Here ya go:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&e=2&u=/nm/20041210/hl_nm/surgery_penis_dc
Right back at you, ****head: http://goat.cx/
G
George Macdonald
That's cute coming from someone with no sources at all.
But no, I provided multiple memory manufacturers, motherboard
manufacturers, and chipset makers, in the form of Intel in the BX data
sheets, as sources.
Your mind is wandering again - been at the British Beefburgers have you?
The thread will clearly show that it was I who brought up the i440BX docs -
something you seem to have forgotten you acknowledged - which you still
have not digested. As for memory mfrs I suggest you read the data sheets
and place them in the proper chronological context, before using them as
ammunition.
Yes I did and, as I just mentioned, some of us are able to handle more than
one thought in a message.
Just save the red herrings.
I have no problem with corrections that are correct and, who knows, maybe
someday you'll find one. What I do have a problem with is your inability to
even read what's written, much less get any of it right.
I'm fed up with your twisting and wriggling AGAIN!... and now a week late
and a fact short! Why can you not just confess that you just misread the
OP's question about "high density SDRAM" and admit that you went off on a
tangent, with an erroneous answer about non-standard high density DIMMs...
and then tried to justify your detour by drifting off into some quirky
factoids about some mfr's mbrd wjhich had nothing to do with the subject at
hand.
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
G
George Macdonald
Kinda feeble that one - we've all seen it once... a long time ago. Don't
tell us it's a self-portrait, since *your* head is clearly not dislodged
yet.
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
T
Trent
Kinda feeble that one
This from a guy who cut-n-pastes a web address as some sort of [f]lame
(because he can't think of his own, no doubt). Then has the temerity to
whine when the same weak tactic is used against him. Sheesh.
we've all seen it once... a long time ago.
And some of us have seen it hundreds of times, eh Georgie old boy?
Don't
tell us it's a self-portrait, since *your* head is clearly not dislodged
yet.
*yawn*
Now that that's out of the way and I have a fresh bit of oxygen in me, I
think you may yet prove useful. Take a sharpened pencil and introduce it
into your right ear. Using the palm of your right hand (that's the
wanking one with all the blisters) drive it in firmly. Repeat until it
protrudes from your left ear. That's dealt with your brain, an entirely
useless organ from the looks of things. Donate the other parts of your
body to useful people who might need them.
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Same old ****ing sig. How many more years are you going to keep using this
thing? At least use a proper sig-delimiter, there must be tens of
megabytes of this POS .sig archived on Google Groups. What a waste of
space - much like yourself, I might add.
G
George Macdonald
Kinda feeble that one
This from a guy who cut-n-pastes a web address as some sort of [f]lame
(because he can't think of his own, no doubt). Then has the temerity to
whine when the same weak tactic is used against him. Sheesh.
we've all seen it once... a long time ago.
And some of us have seen it hundreds of times, eh Georgie old boy?
Don't
tell us it's a self-portrait, since *your* head is clearly not dislodged
yet.
*yawn*
Now that that's out of the way and I have a fresh bit of oxygen in me, I
think you may yet prove useful. Take a sharpened pencil and introduce it
into your right ear. Using the palm of your right hand (that's the
wanking one with all the blisters) drive it in firmly. Repeat until it
protrudes from your left ear. That's dealt with your brain, an entirely
useless organ from the looks of things. Donate the other parts of your
body to useful people who might need them.
Hmm, you know whinging and abuse don't mix! You need to go back to abuse
school - clearly you're not the Trent I thought you might be... or you've
lost it.
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
A
alexi
The "topic" was high vs. low density SDRAM!!!!!!
The "high" and "low-density" DIMMs is a ill-defined topic, as Yousuf
Khan already explained. Different merchants use opposite terminology,
which is confusing. The real question is whether a chipset
supports MAA12 line or not. Intel 440BX and i810 chipset did not
support the MAA12 line, therefore the 440 mainboards cannot use
any DIMMS based on any chips that use A12 address line.
Typical DIMM configuration is 8 chips x8 bits. One chip with address
lines up to MAA11 gives you 4096x4096x8 = 16Mbytes = 128Mbits.
Therefore, 440BX supports DIMMs with maximum capacity of
8chips x 16 MBytes = 128MB one-sided, and 256MB dual-sided.
If you have a one-sided 256MB DIMM, it is likely 8chips x 32MB
(or 256Mbit each). The "newer" 256Mbit SDRAMs require 12x13-bit
addressing, which requires MAA12 on chipsets. If the chipset
does not have the MAA12 line, the DIMM will be identified as 128MB,
or half capacity will be unused.
Alternatively, if a DIMM uses chips with x16 configuration (rare case),
it might be a different story. So, the correct recipe is to
get manufacturer's datasheet on DIMMs and check if A12 is
there or is NC.
The question of whether a board BIOS supports maximum memory
configuration and sets proper drive strength is a different one.
Regards,
- aap
The "high" and "low-density" DIMMs is a ill-defined topic, as Yousuf
Khan already explained. Different merchants use opposite terminology,
which is confusing. The real question is whether a chipset
supports MAA12 line or not. Intel 440BX and i810 chipset did not
support the MAA12 line, therefore the 440 mainboards cannot use
any DIMMS based on any chips that use A12 address line.
Typical DIMM configuration is 8 chips x8 bits. One chip with address
lines up to MAA11 gives you 4096x4096x8 = 16Mbytes = 128Mbits.
Therefore, 440BX supports DIMMs with maximum capacity of
8chips x 16 MBytes = 128MB one-sided, and 256MB dual-sided.
If you have a one-sided 256MB DIMM, it is likely 8chips x 32MB
(or 256Mbit each). The "newer" 256Mbit SDRAMs require 12x13-bit
addressing, which requires MAA12 on chipsets. If the chipset
does not have the MAA12 line, the DIMM will be identified as 128MB,
or half capacity will be unused.
Alternatively, if a DIMM uses chips with x16 configuration (rare case),
it might be a different story. So, the correct recipe is to
get manufacturer's datasheet on DIMMs and check if A12 is
there or is NC.
The question of whether a board BIOS supports maximum memory
configuration and sets proper drive strength is a different one.
Regards,
- aap
D
David Maynard
George said:Your mind is wandering again - been at the British Beefburgers have you?
The thread will clearly show that it was I who brought up the i440BX docs -
something you seem to have forgotten you acknowledged - which you still
have not digested. As for memory mfrs I suggest you read the data sheets
and place them in the proper chronological context, before using them as
ammunition.
Besides it being the case I said I used the BX data sheets as a reference,
not that I was the first to 'mention the name', that's a new 'most idiotic
infantile argument' record for you; which is quite an achievement
considering your propensity for them.
It's the content that matters, not who 'first mentioned' the name of the
data sheet.
Just save the red herrings.
Why? You provide such a plentiful supply there's no need for anyone to
'conserve' them.
I'm fed up with your twisting and wriggling AGAIN!... and now a week late
A 'week late'. LOL Sorry, but you are simply not on my 'ASAP' list.
and a fact short! Why can you not just confess that you just misread the
OP's question about "high density SDRAM" and admit that you went off on a
tangent, with an erroneous answer about non-standard high density DIMMs...
and then tried to justify your detour by drifting off into some quirky
factoids about some mfr's mbrd wjhich had nothing to do with the subject at
hand.
Might as well ask why don't people just go ahead and 'admit' that cars are
trees because the reason is the same: it isn't true.
Why don't you admit you simply can't handle a message with more than one
thought in it?