Two memory modules go bad at the same time?

[David Maynard]

I think I ran into this issue before, and I ended up just reinstalling
Windows. I'm not sure if there even is an alternate solution. I'm
downloading Windows XP now (I always lose CDs, dammit), and hopefully
I'll have my system back up and running at the end of the night.

Do a repair install. Not the first repair option but continue on as if
doing a fresh install but select repair the existing installation. You'll
need to reinstall all service packs before all applications will work
properly because they'll expect the service pack files to be there.

 

[David Maynard]

Alright guys I've sorted out my troubles. I was able to pretty much
rule out everything except the mobo as not working, so I bought the
mobo kony suggested, I just installed it, and I'm now running memtest86
and not getting the errors.

Windows isn't booting, mind you, but that's a Windows driver issue, not
a hardware issue.

Grrrr, stupid Windows. It should be able to hot-swap mobos.

Why should it? A motherboard is not a 'mobile' item and, in fact,
considered essentially 'the computer' (with a processor and memory).
Everything else is an 'add-on' to it.

Btw, "hot swap" means while power is on and I'd love to see how you did
that with a motherboard

 

[kony]

Why should it? A motherboard is not a 'mobile' item and, in fact,
considered essentially 'the computer' (with a processor and memory).
Everything else is an 'add-on' to it.

Because it's a desirable feature, to many even if you don't
care either way. Because what they "have" to allow is the
opposite of what they would allow, in a free market to
remain competitive.

Full retail licenses are not tied to "the computer", only
one system which would obviously not be the case here. They
would have the feature because without it the customer will
spend a minimum of 1/2 hour if not more (actually a LOT more
time if a person is prudent and makes system backups
inbetween the windows updates as they should've previously).
Their choice to cost customers time is clearly a disregard
for them.

 

[Cyde Weys]

Btw, "hot swap" means while power is on and I'd love to see how you did
that with a motherboard

I'm well aware of what hot swapping means, and it should easily be
possible if you can swap the CPU between the mobos within one clock
cycle.

 

[David Maynard]

Because it's a desirable feature, to many even if you don't
care either way.

Not to 'many'. To a comparatively small few.

Because what they "have" to allow is the
opposite of what they would allow, in a free market to
remain competitive.

There is no 'market incentive' to provide features, at significant cost,
that only a handful of people would even care about. And, just as it might
be 'convenient' to a hand full of car 'enthusiasts' if automobiles came
with a sufficiently sized engine compartment, 'self configuring' electrical
systems, 'auto-fit' exhaust piping, 'universal' cooling, 'infinitely
variable' transmission ratios, and built in mounts to hold every motor made
so they can 'hot swap' a 'vette 454 for a Ford 289 in 10 minutes, it's
ridiculously cost prohibitive.

Full retail licenses are not tied to "the computer", only
one system which would obviously not be the case here.

I didn't say a thing about licenses.

They
would have the feature because without it the customer will
spend a minimum of 1/2 hour if not more (actually a LOT more
time if a person is prudent and makes system backups
inbetween the windows updates as they should've previously).
Their choice to cost customers time is clearly a disregard
for them.

That is simply nonsense. It isn't done for the reason I just stated. It
would be an incredibly complex 'feature', costing significant time and
money to implement (if even possible), for a hand full of 'enthusiasts' who
exchange motherboards, or the rare failure, and all to simply save an hour
or so of time for those few. Not to mention it's doubtful it would even
save time because the process of redetecting and installing everything
would still need to take place.

But then you'd bitch incessantly about the "software bloat" needed to
support a 'feature' that perhaps 1 out of a thousand use once every 10 years.

Actually, the capability exists. It's called a 'repair install'.

 

[David Maynard]

I'm well aware of what hot swapping means, and it should easily be
possible if you can swap the CPU between the mobos within one clock
cycle.

Oh I can easily swap the CPU in one clock cycle, it's getting it to
remember which cycle it was in when it powers back up that has me stumped.

 

[Cyde Weys]

Oh I can easily swap the CPU in one clock cycle, it's getting it to
remember which cycle it was in when it powers back up that has me stumped.

But then it's not hot-swapping if you end up powering down the computer
and then bringing it back up.

 

[kony]

Not to 'many'. To a comparatively small few.

You might be surprised just how many people want the
performance boost that comes with newer hardware OR that
have a system failure and either buy new box or new board
and do not want to reinstall windows, customize it, or
install all their software 'n such all over again. In fact,
I suspect most people would find the ability to do that,
useful... far more useful than some of the so-called
features in XP.

There is no 'market incentive' to provide features, at significant cost,

Well here we go again... I doubt it is a significant cost.
I suspect they know how and could do it right now if they
chose, and may have even tested it. They DID have to have
the basic functionality working in the first place just to
install the OS, too.

There is a market incentive. It is a very desirable
feature. They just didn't need to do it because they're not
competing with anyone else in the retail PC biz. Nobody
claimed that "all" users "need" it, but such is the case
with any marketable feature of (take your pick- any
product).

that only a handful of people would even care about. And, just as it might
be 'convenient' to a hand full of car 'enthusiasts' if automobiles came
with a sufficiently sized engine compartment,

handful of enthusiasts? I take it you either don't remember
how roomy cars used to be under the hood, or don't do any
repairs yourself anymore. Regardless, with that space
reduction there was gain, a size and aerodynamics benefit.

'self configuring' electrical
systems, 'auto-fit' exhaust piping, 'universal' cooling, 'infinitely
variable' transmission ratios, and built in mounts to hold every motor made
so they can 'hot swap' a 'vette 454 for a Ford 289 in 10 minutes, it's
ridiculously cost prohibitive.

.... if you choose to compare only ridiculously cost
prohibitive things, sure, but that is not the case with XP
being able to PNP a drive controller, for example, if/when
it can't find the OS boot drive.

That is simply nonsense. It isn't done for the reason I just stated.

Nope, it is ludicrous to claim it's a cost issue with the
vast wealth they generated while simultaneously, removing
all competition from the market. They could give away
windows for free and still afford to do it.

It
would be an incredibly complex 'feature',

Not at all.

costing significant time and
money to implement (if even possible),

Don't be ridiculous. "if possible"?
If I had the source and a few dozen hours I'm sure I could
do it myself. What's a few dozen hours (actually far less
to a MS programmer already familiar with the code)?

for a hand full of 'enthusiasts' who
exchange motherboards, or the rare failure,

I could as easily claim the opposite, that there isn't
anyone who wouldn't find that feature desirable.

and all to simply save an hour
or so of time for those few.

You're quite wrong in presuming it would take most people
only an hour to install windows, drivers, reconfig it, patch
it, install applications, restore data backups, sync email,
etc, etc, etc. Not even close to an hour. We can't
automatically presume a repair install will suffice either,
because it won't always. The presumption of a person with a
very basic setup that would only take an hour, would also be
presuming that person was capable of the whole system setup.
Most users who can do it, also have configuration and
additions enough that an hour is not realistic.

Not to mention it's doubtful it would even
save time because the process of redetecting and installing everything
would still need to take place.

It might be doubtful to you but it should take far less
time, not even considering reinstalling the patches.

But then you'd bitch incessantly about the "software bloat" needed to
support a 'feature' that perhaps 1 out of a thousand use once every 10 years.

incessantly?
If you say so, I don't recall but one thread ever, when the
sub-topic had already been brought up by another person.

Actually, the capability exists. It's called a 'repair install'.

Actually that's the opposite of not reinstalling windows.

 

[David Maynard]

But then it's not hot-swapping if you end up powering down the computer
and then bringing it back up.

I meant the processor as it's flying in a clock cycle from one motherboard
to the other, or are you planning on gate charge to keep it 'powered'
during the socket transfer?

At any rate, we can talk about how "well aware" we are and make fun of
changing processors in one clock cycle but the fact of the matter is that
you don't 'hot swap' a typical motherboard.

 

[Cyde Weys]

At any rate, we can talk about how "well aware" we are and make fun of
changing processors in one clock cycle but the fact of the matter is that
you don't 'hot swap' a typical motherboard.

Yeah I know, it was just a joke, but it sure went on for awhile :-|

 

[David Maynard]

You might be surprised just how many people want the
performance boost that comes with newer hardware OR that
have a system failure and either buy new box or new board
and do not want to reinstall windows, customize it, or
install all their software 'n such all over again. In fact,
I suspect most people would find the ability to do that,
useful... far more useful than some of the so-called
features in XP.

I wouldn't be surprised at all. People always like the idea of something
for nothing and that's the classic 'marketing survey' mistake: "Would you
like to have <insert great idea>?" (especially when put in essentially
useless terms like "performance boost") Put a price tag on it and ask
"would you buy <insert great idea>?" and the answer often changes dramatically.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of users are not going to
crack open the case and 'how swap' motherboards. Not to mention they don't
have to "install all their software 'n such all over again" even for those
comparatively few who do. Just do a repair install and all that is preserved.

Well here we go again... I doubt it is a significant cost.
I suspect they know how and could do it right now if they
chose, and may have even tested it.

Frankly, I thought you had more insight into operating systems than to make
such a mind boggling assertion.

They DID have to have
the basic functionality working in the first place just to
install the OS, too.

Use it. It's there. It's called a repair install.

There is a market incentive. It is a very desirable
feature.

Hog wash.

They just didn't need to do it because they're not
competing with anyone else in the retail PC biz.

They don't do it because it's a waste of effort.

Nobody
claimed that "all" users "need" it, but such is the case
with any marketable feature of (take your pick- any
product).

That's the classic "all the same" B.S. 99% use this and that's
'not all users'. .1% use this. See? that's 'not all users' too. Ergo,
they're both 'the same' since neither are used by 'all users'.

handful of enthusiasts? I take it you either don't remember
how roomy cars used to be under the hood, or don't do any
repairs yourself anymore. Regardless, with that space
reduction there was gain, a size and aerodynamics benefit.

Dealing with only one, and the most trivial one at that, of the criteria
don't get the job done but it might explain how you come up with the
bizarre notion that reconfiguring an entire O.S. on the fly is a simple thing.

... if you choose to compare only ridiculously cost
prohibitive things, sure, but that is not the case with XP
being able to PNP a drive controller, for example, if/when
it can't find the OS boot drive.

It *will* PnP a drive controller, and drives too, but it has to *be* there
to do it and if it can't load then it isn't there.

Tell me, which PCI bus is it going to look on? Windows supports more than
one, you know.

Btw, where's it going to magically find the drivers for the new hardware?

Say it finds 3 hard drives. Windows supports multi-boot so which would you
suggest it just 'assume' you want to boot?

Let's see. I have a system with multiple boot choices, I select 3 and...
well darn... 3 is bad... So now you want the loader to willy nilly look
around and load up something else.

No matter what you come up with someone, like you, will bitch it's not the
right choice, and a 'MS conspiracy' (everything is, right?), but then, most
users aren't 'how swapping' motherboards so it doesn't matter anyway.

Nope, it is ludicrous to claim it's a cost issue with the
vast wealth they generated while simultaneously, removing
all competition from the market. They could give away
windows for free and still afford to do it.

Remind me to never invest in a company you're heading.

Not at all.

You clearly don't understand it.

Don't be ridiculous. "if possible"?
If I had the source and a few dozen hours I'm sure I could
do it myself. What's a few dozen hours (actually far less
to a MS programmer already familiar with the code)?

With all due respect, Kony, it's you who are being mind boggling ridiculous
and you couldn't even write down what the requirements of 'it' is in a few
dozen hours, much less program and test it.

I could as easily claim the opposite, that there isn't
anyone who wouldn't find that feature desirable.

You can claim anything but that doesn't make it so.

When the typical user would rather have root canal than crack the case
being able to have Windows 'automatically detect' what they aren't going to
do is about as much of a 'non-feature' as you can get.

You're quite wrong in presuming it would take most people
only an hour to install windows, drivers, reconfig it, patch
it, install applications, restore data backups, sync email,
etc, etc, etc. Not even close to an hour.

You said half an hour and I doubled it.

We can't
automatically presume a repair install will suffice either,
because it won't always.

I've never had one fail but all your doing is making a case that it's
infinitely more complex than you previously claimed if a repair install
won't always work.

The presumption of a person with a
very basic setup that would only take an hour, would also be
presuming that person was capable of the whole system setup.
Most users who can do it, also have configuration and
additions enough that an hour is not realistic.

You said half an hour and I doubled it.

It might be doubtful to you but it should take far less
time, not even considering reinstalling the patches.

Nope. All those 'additional' things they have to do with a repair install
would have to be done with an 'on-the-fly' reconfiguration too because your
existing patches don't *have* the patches for the 'new' configuration so,
just like a repair install, they'd have to be backed out and redone.

incessantly?
If you say so, I don't recall but one thread ever, when the
sub-topic had already been brought up by another person.




Actually that's the opposite of not reinstalling windows.

Now you're just being pedantic. It isn't a fresh install and it preserves
everything.

 

[kony]

I wouldn't be surprised at all. People always like the idea of something
for nothing and that's the classic 'marketing survey' mistake: "Would you
like to have <insert great idea>?" (especially when put in essentially
useless terms like "performance boost") Put a price tag on it and ask
"would you buy <insert great idea>?" and the answer often changes dramatically.

We don't have to put a price tag on it. We can see it as a
desirable feature MS would market to stay in business, if
there were any competition.

You could similarly discount any kind of product feature but
that makes the feature not-unworthwhile as a part of the
whole.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of users are not going to
crack open the case and 'how swap' motherboards. Not to mention they don't
have to "install all their software 'n such all over again" even for those
comparatively few who do. Just do a repair install and all that is preserved.

The vast majority aren't going to use MSN Messenger either,
but look, there it is.

Just doing a repair install ususally works, but not always,
and never "all that is preserved" as there is always the
need for repatching, and the chance a patch not go so
smoothly and leave a problem. Fact is, two users of same
motherboard and OS may have different OS problems based on
variables like which patches are installed when, or the
apps, several thing in conjunction. The simple idea becomes
no more simple than simply, having the OS PNP like it
already had to do once, and would have to do AGAIN for the
repair install. Basically, doing the PNP would simply
remove all unnecessary, redundant and detrimental aspects.

Maybe you don't care, but I'll bet there are quite a few
features of windows you personally don't use, but look(!),
there they are anyway.

Frankly, I thought you had more insight into operating systems than to make
such a mind boggling assertion.

A sufficieintly enough vague comment to have no useful
purpose, and I could claim same about your view if you feel
the very authors of the OS can't manage to make it do what
it already does, with a different event.. The fact is that
windows already does it for the initial install, and does so
for WinPE as well. You can even hack together a way to do
it on a limited scale without the source.

While it would be nice if it were a primary feature. even if
it were not, even if it only worked 95% of the time that
would be a vast improvement, it could allow doing so without
their needing to guarantee that functionality.

Use it. It's there. It's called a repair install.

Yep, which is fundamentally correct when the OS needs
repaired, not new hardware detected.

Hog wash.

I don't recall insisting that you, personally, had to want
it. I do suspect you'd end up using it though, and
claiming that many individual end-users wouldn't, may be
beside the point as many of them wouldn't be doing the
repair install either, rather the box would end up in the
hands of someone who WOULD be likely to do it.

They don't do it because it's a waste of effort.

If they do end up doing it, I invite you to refrain from
taking advantage of it since it would be a waste.
Fortunately MS didn't wait on your say-so to implement their
other features or we'd only have "Windows DM".

That's the classic "all the same" B.S. 99% use this and that's
'not all users'. .1% use this. See? that's 'not all users' too. Ergo,
they're both 'the same' since neither are used by 'all users'.

Sure, and nobody needs more than 640K either.

It *will* PnP a drive controller, and drives too, but it has to *be* there
to do it and if it can't load then it isn't there.

Actually, no, your idea of why it won't work is invalid.
Right now, I have a box that loads a gutted WinXP from an SD
Flash card and it does. Ever heard of Bart's PE?

Perhaps you have assumed there is a techincal problem but
too quickly discouted that it might've been deliberate to
not allow it.

Tell me, which PCI bus is it going to look on? Windows supports more than
one, you know.

We all know it's hard for a computer to look at more than
one thing. They're all just flip-flops. Funny how windows
manages to do it during an install, during a repair install,
and in a PE environment but suddenly for THIS argument it
must be impossible?

Btw, where's it going to magically find the drivers for the new hardware?

I don't suppose you ever noticed that beyond that bit about
adding a floppy w/driver during an install, Windows does
manage to make due. I'm not arguing to reinvent the wheel,
but to use the abilities already present.

Say it finds 3 hard drives. Windows supports multi-boot so which would you
suggest it just 'assume' you want to boot?

Have you ever heard of a menu? Of course you have.
Would it be hard for it to default to the newest? Nope.
Hard to imagine that if you had 3 drives in a system with
bootable OS, and the first tried wasn't correct, that the
next should be tried?

Why are you going to consider this 3 hard drives w/OS
scenario when you are the one already discounting the
liklihood of a user doing it with even one drive? Seems a
bit backwards. Do you think it would take longer to unplug
two drives or boot a CD and do a repair install and repatch?

Let's see. I have a system with multiple boot choices, I select 3 and...
well darn... 3 is bad... So now you want the loader to willy nilly look
around and load up something else.

Well, I don't know about your systems but most don't take
long to go through a POST, worst case would be you press
reset and choose one of the other options next time, but
better still if it simply didn't proceed from the menu till
a suitable choice was made.

What does "3 is bad" mean anyway? If the OS weren't intact,
of course a repair install would be a more reasonable
option. If it is, this idea of "bad" is irrelevant. We're
talking about a specific scenario where system had a viable
windows installation already.

No matter what you come up with someone, like you, will bitch it's not the
right choice, and a 'MS conspiracy' (everything is, right?), but then, most
users aren't 'how swapping' motherboards so it doesn't matter anyway.

I suppose you feel it's unreasonable for a customer to be
able to choose their product/features in a free society?

I tell you what, we'll just take away your cars and you get
whatever one lone manufacturer wants to give you, when they
have no reason to try to sway you towards their product..
Nevermind if it won't go in reverse, since with cars not
being able to go in reverse, we would be able to argue that
nobody is "trying" to go in reverse.

Competition in the marketplace is a primary goal of a free
society for exactly these kinds of reasons... so it's not up
to one person to declare "nobody gets to have that feature",
nor one company.

Remind me to never invest in a company you're heading.

It really would be a terrible idea to add features that are
easily implemented and desirable towards the end of a more
valuable product, would it?

Fortunately, there's a whole world out there that does
invest in things you choose not to, and some do make a few
bucks along the way.

You clearly don't understand it.

Which part? That it already does it in different boot
scenarios or that it would use essentially the same code ran
during your "repair install" except leaving out the rest of
the OS reinstallation?

With all due respect, Kony, it's you who are being mind boggling ridiculous
and you couldn't even write down what the requirements of 'it' is in a few
dozen hours, much less program and test it.

Ahh, so you couldn't, or rather, might've been able to if
you didn't have the mental block, but instead presume nobody
else can. We'd be living in the stone-age still if everyone
had that philosophy.

For an overview of a more crude way of doing it, I need not
a few dozen seconds, let alone a few dozen hours:

Repair install is a linear process, simply start it up at
the hardware detection phase and stop it at the end of that.

Seems oversimplified, but shouldn't be by much.

You can claim anything but that doesn't make it so.

When the typical user would rather have root canal than crack the case...

OK, I can see we have no common ground when you start up
with root canals, and this discussion is going nowhere so
again we might as well just cut it short, I'll make this my
last post re: XP PNP

... being able to have Windows 'automatically detect' what they aren't going to
do is about as much of a 'non-feature' as you can get.

.... and we all know a computer doesn't just sit around
waiting for commands of things we don't do, as well as
whatever we DO end up doing. Your argument also makes PNP
within windows pointless, apparently.

You said half an hour and I doubled it.

"Not even close" means far exceeding it.
Repair install, yes it can be done in that timeframe, except
some patching scenarios.

I've never had one fail but all your doing is making a case that it's
infinitely more complex than you previously claimed if a repair install
won't always work.

Infinintely complex? Seems like doing a repair install and
repatching would be that, contrasting with only re-PNP as
needed.

Nope. All those 'additional' things they have to do with a repair install
would have to be done with an 'on-the-fly' reconfiguration too

No, absolutely not. That is completely ridiculous.

because your
existing patches don't *have* the patches for the 'new' configuration so,
just like a repair install, they'd have to be backed out and redone.

I don't dismiss the possibility of a patch needing redone.
"Have to be backed out" is an arbitrary presumption though.
If you're talking about some kind of 100% guarantee, you're
not talking about windows at all in any way shape or form.
regardless of PNP'ing new hardware.

Now you're just being pedantic. It isn't a fresh install and it preserves
everything.

Funny, if I had been the one to claim "it preserves
everything" in a different arguement context, you would've
been the one to point out that it doesn't. I can see that
you find it an impossible thing, and therefore can only hope
that MS does not pin hopes on you doing it for them.

 

[David Maynard]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 02:13:08 -0500, David Maynard



Ahh, so you couldn't, or rather, might've been able to if
you didn't have the mental block, but instead presume nobody
else can. We'd be living in the stone-age still if everyone
had that philosophy.

I come from the "mental block" of knowing how a proper software development
process works as opposed to your 'un blocked' open mind presuming that
everything is equally desirable, trivial and free if not for that evil
bastard Bill Gates.

And as someone familiar with it I can, with reasonable confidence, say that
your description wouldn't suffice for the Project Charter goals overview,
much less a statement of work, and not enough to even start on a functional
description or design document. One can forget about a test plan since
you've not specified anything testable and no, "it should work right" is
not a valid test criteria.

But then it would never get to the point of a Project Charter because "lots
of people will like it" won't get past market analysis even if someone were
silly enough to think "how would you like it if Windows worked after you
changed motherboards" was a sufficient conceptual overview. After all, a
repair already does that.

Note that this has nothing to do with 'Microsoft'. It's how any properly
run company, with competition in full flower, develops product.

You don't know the underlying structure, the scope of hardware support, man
machine interface considerations (you invented a new menu on the fly) nor
have you given 2 seconds of thought to what your 'simple' (sic) solution
(whatever it is) might break yet, with virtually no information whatsoever,
you're 'certain' the entire thing could be done in 6 hours. Hell, you
couldn't get through the first conceptual review in 6 hours, never mind a
'project'. And I'm picking 'short' things. Do you really think anyone in
their right mind is going to release product with less than 6 hours of
testing on it to millions of users after that significant a change?

And I haven't even touched on documentation, user manuals, and a host of
other issues.

Lastly, I didn't say it couldn't be done. I said it wasn't worth it and in
any company with proper development procedures it, as you've proposed,
would be at, or near, the bottom of any priority list, especially when
there is a sufficient mechanism already in place.

And that is why I am not the least bit surprised that Microsoft hasn't done
it either.

 

[kony]

kony wrote:

I come from the "mental block" of knowing how a proper software development
process works as opposed to your 'un blocked' open mind presuming that
everything is equally desirable, trivial and free if not for that evil
bastard Bill Gates.

LOL.

OK, your opinons were noted, there's no point in our
back-and-forth on this anymore.

 

[David Maynard]

LOL.

OK, your opinons were noted, there's no point in our
back-and-forth on this anymore.

I'm glad you appreciated it in the humorous manner it was intended.

One of these days we should exchange development stories because I've got a
few good ones

 

[Marcelo Rodrigues]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Windows isn't booting, mind you, but that's a Windows driver issue, not
a hardware issue.

Grrrr, stupid Windows. It should be able to hot-swap mobos.

Windows NT/2000/XP? There's a little trick (at least with PATA) - wich only
works if You can use the old mainboard BEFORE the upgrade to the new one.

Problem is: Windows count on the IDE driver installed, and when it finds the
controller has changed it panics. Funny thing, since on the first boot it
uses a generic driver. Go figure...

I do the following:

While still using the old mainboard:

1) Go to hardware management
2) Remove your IDE controller, and install the generic IDE driver.
3) Power down the system. DO NOT REBOOT.

Now swap the mainboard.

4) Power up, as usual.
5) Go trough the hardware detection process.

It works!

But it's really silly. Windows should try the failsafe default IDE driver,
if the specific one doesn't work...

[]s

- --
Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDXkUF977gajvh3yYRAk+0AJ9K51LK2tfROFfdgsgiPib588qz/ACfTrAh
mwmIaYGKQwik+GNBVD4P/Z4=
=HiNH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Cyde Weys]

I'm just posting this message so that, if somewhere down the line,
someone sees my original post and realizes they're having the same
problems, they know how I fixed things.

The new motherboard arrived last weekend and I installed it successfully
on Sunday. I went with the refurb MSI model that kony suggested. It
didn't come with a backplate (nor drivers CD), but it works. Then, of
course, my old Windows installation was bolloxed because it simply can't
adapt to a new mobo. This happened to me once before and the only
solution is to reinstall Windows.

But, of course, I lost my OEM CDs. So I tried downloading it online. I
went through FOUR different versions of Windows ISOs that just plain
sucked (either didn't boot or couldn't install because of missing files)
until I ran across something called "Windows XP Professional End User
Edition". I like the irony inherent in that name, and to boot, it
worked.

So I booted my system, copied over mobo drivers on CD from another
computer, thus allowing integrated ethernet on the board to function,
and then I downloaded the rest of the drivers online. First I started
with the latest version of ATI's Catalyst Control Center, but it wasn't
working, until I found some obscure post online that stated that it
needed the .NET Framework 1.1. Grrr. So I downloaded that too and it
worked. Next up, sound drivers, which actually took FOUR times to
"take". Don't ask; they simply weren't working for awhile (Windows
wasn't detecting the sound card). Finally I swapped the sound card and
the SATA RAID card between PCI slots and THAT got it working. Don't
ask.

And then, I had to install the usual ... Mozilla Firefox, programs, etc.
But the bottom line is, my system is finally back up and running. And
since I didn't reformat any of my partitions during the Windows
reinstallation I didn't even lose any data (it warns about possibly
deleting the "My Documents" folder but that didn't happen to me).

The one thing I will suggest to anyone with similar problems is to go
get a Gentoo Linux LiveCD. It has on it a bootable version of
memtest86, which was very helpful in diagnosing my problem. Also, it
helped me to eliminate hardware problems with the new mobo because it
booted perfectly and was all ready to start installing. That indicated
to me that it was a Windows driver issue.