I have an ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe Series Wifi Edition motherboard, which is
capable of running 8GB of RAM. In have a Phenom 9500 quad-core cpu, which is
64-bit. I have 4 DIMMS of KVR667D2N5/2G, which is the RAM the motherboard
manufacturer says runs in the board at 8GB.

I run Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Sp1 and Windows XP Pro SP 2 as
dual-booting Os'.

I cannot boot to the desktop with 4GB of RAM in, and have tried all the RAM
DIMMS alone and in 4GB configurations of all which works. It is in continual
reboot with 8GB installed.

I tried the KB929777 patch for 64-bit Vista, but it reported that it is not
for this system.

ASUS claims that the master boot record is the problem, but VISTA always
crashes before it will let me fix the master boot record, or reinstall Vista
or anything.

If you can help, please do so.

Remove XP. Find out how to run Vista at 8GB before you consider doing
anything else. You have to establish if the chipset can even support Vista
x64 on your board with four dimms installed. I believe you are using DDR2
667 memory so that should not be the issue. The problem is probably one of
timings and not software.

"MrKit" <MrKit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1782A276-CA1A-455F-BCBF-C792B419ADAE@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
>I have an ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe Series Wifi Edition motherboard, which is
> capable of running 8GB of RAM. In have a Phenom 9500 quad-core cpu, which
> is
> 64-bit. I have 4 DIMMS of KVR667D2N5/2G, which is the RAM the motherboard
> manufacturer says runs in the board at 8GB.
>
> I run Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Sp1 and Windows XP Pro SP 2 as
> dual-booting Os'.
>
> I cannot boot to the desktop with 4GB of RAM in, and have tried all the
> RAM
> DIMMS alone and in 4GB configurations of all which works. It is in
> continual
> reboot with 8GB installed.
>
> I tried the KB929777 patch for 64-bit Vista, but it reported that it is
> not
> for this system.
>
> ASUS claims that the master boot record is the problem, but VISTA always
> crashes before it will let me fix the master boot record, or reinstall
> Vista
> or anything.
>
> If you can help, please do so.[/color]

Thanks, but not thanks. I am not going to destroy my XP installation and then
go through later on reinstalling it, begging on the phone for Microsoft to
activate it because it has been reinstalled so many times (back when
Microsoft insisted I uninstall it in order to get support - now at least my
support has run out and I can't afford their paid support for this overpriced
OS).


Taking away the functionality I have is not the answer.

Kingston, the DIMM manufacturer, gave me the timing and other settings for
the memory. It is also programmed on the DIMMS themselves, to be read
directly by the BIOS. And, since the BIOS properly reports the 8GB of RAM,
which is prior to the OS running, the DIMMS are working properly. It MUST be
an OS issue.

The BIOS accepts the RAM. It is the OS (XP Pro and Vista) that are having
the problem.

Remember, I tested each DIMM independently and then with another. They work.
The system will boot with 1GB, 2 GB, or 4GB using those exact DIMMS. It just
will not boot once the total is over 4GB.

The motherboard and memory manufacturers say it is an OS issue. I'm no
expert, but what little I know seems to indicate that they are right.

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Remove XP. Find out how to run Vista at 8GB before you consider doing
> anything else. You have to establish if the chipset can even support Vista
> x64 on your board with four dimms installed. I believe you are using DDR2
> 667 memory so that should not be the issue. The problem is probably one of
> timings and not software.
>
> "MrKit" <MrKit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1782A276-CA1A-455F-BCBF-C792B419ADAE@microsoft.com...[color=green]
> >I have an ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe Series Wifi Edition motherboard, which is
> > capable of running 8GB of RAM. In have a Phenom 9500 quad-core cpu, which
> > is
> > 64-bit. I have 4 DIMMS of KVR667D2N5/2G, which is the RAM the motherboard
> > manufacturer says runs in the board at 8GB.
> >
> > I run Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Sp1 and Windows XP Pro SP 2 as
> > dual-booting Os'.
> >
> > I cannot boot to the desktop with 4GB of RAM in, and have tried all the
> > RAM
> > DIMMS alone and in 4GB configurations of all which works. It is in
> > continual
> > reboot with 8GB installed.
> >
> > I tried the KB929777 patch for 64-bit Vista, but it reported that it is
> > not
> > for this system.
> >
> > ASUS claims that the master boot record is the problem, but VISTA always
> > crashes before it will let me fix the master boot record, or reinstall
> > Vista
> > or anything.
> >
> > If you can help, please do so.[/color]
>
>[/color]

Incorrect. The POST showing all the ram is important but does not mean an
OS will be stable. This is a known issue and involves many hardware issues.
A 64bit OS is more demanding on a memory controller than a 32bit OS even in
4GB of ram. It is called the "fourth **** dimm" problem and you probably
won't find a software solution.

Just because a mobo is spec'd to support 8GB of ram and spec'd to support
certain dram speeds does NOT mean that the board can support 8GB at the
higher rated speeds using a 64bit OS.

But I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject.

"MrKit" <MrKit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:593C7154-A996-42A2-B1CE-C2F16260ADEC@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Thanks, but not thanks. I am not going to destroy my XP installation and
> then
> go through later on reinstalling it, begging on the phone for Microsoft to
> activate it because it has been reinstalled so many times (back when
> Microsoft insisted I uninstall it in order to get support - now at least
> my
> support has run out and I can't afford their paid support for this
> overpriced
> OS).
>
>
> Taking away the functionality I have is not the answer.
>
> Kingston, the DIMM manufacturer, gave me the timing and other settings for
> the memory. It is also programmed on the DIMMS themselves, to be read
> directly by the BIOS. And, since the BIOS properly reports the 8GB of RAM,
> which is prior to the OS running, the DIMMS are working properly. It MUST
> be
> an OS issue.
>
> The BIOS accepts the RAM. It is the OS (XP Pro and Vista) that are having
> the problem.
>
> Remember, I tested each DIMM independently and then with another. They
> work.
> The system will boot with 1GB, 2 GB, or 4GB using those exact DIMMS. It
> just
> will not boot once the total is over 4GB.
>
> The motherboard and memory manufacturers say it is an OS issue. I'm no
> expert, but what little I know seems to indicate that they are right.
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Remove XP. Find out how to run Vista at 8GB before you consider doing
>> anything else. You have to establish if the chipset can even support
>> Vista
>> x64 on your board with four dimms installed. I believe you are using
>> DDR2
>> 667 memory so that should not be the issue. The problem is probably one
>> of
>> timings and not software.
>>
>> "MrKit" <MrKit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:1782A276-CA1A-455F-BCBF-C792B419ADAE@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>> >I have an ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe Series Wifi Edition motherboard, which
>> >is
>> > capable of running 8GB of RAM. In have a Phenom 9500 quad-core cpu,
>> > which
>> > is
>> > 64-bit. I have 4 DIMMS of KVR667D2N5/2G, which is the RAM the
>> > motherboard
>> > manufacturer says runs in the board at 8GB.
>> >
>> > I run Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Sp1 and Windows XP Pro SP 2 as
>> > dual-booting Os'.
>> >
>> > I cannot boot to the desktop with 4GB of RAM in, and have tried all the
>> > RAM
>> > DIMMS alone and in 4GB configurations of all which works. It is in
>> > continual
>> > reboot with 8GB installed.
>> >
>> > I tried the KB929777 patch for 64-bit Vista, but it reported that it is
>> > not
>> > for this system.
>> >
>> > ASUS claims that the master boot record is the problem, but VISTA
>> > always
>> > crashes before it will let me fix the master boot record, or reinstall
>> > Vista
>> > or anything.
>> >
>> > If you can help, please do so.[/color]
>>
>>[/color][/color]

Maybe the information in the following link will help:

[url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us[/url]


"MrKit" <MrKit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:593C7154-A996-42A2-B1CE-C2F16260ADEC@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Thanks, but not thanks. I am not going to destroy my XP installation and
> then
> go through later on reinstalling it, begging on the phone for Microsoft to
> activate it because it has been reinstalled so many times (back when
> Microsoft insisted I uninstall it in order to get support - now at least
> my
> support has run out and I can't afford their paid support for this
> overpriced
> OS).
>
>
> Taking away the functionality I have is not the answer.
>
> Kingston, the DIMM manufacturer, gave me the timing and other settings for
> the memory. It is also programmed on the DIMMS themselves, to be read
> directly by the BIOS. And, since the BIOS properly reports the 8GB of RAM,
> which is prior to the OS running, the DIMMS are working properly. It MUST
> be
> an OS issue.
>
> The BIOS accepts the RAM. It is the OS (XP Pro and Vista) that are having
> the problem.
>
> Remember, I tested each DIMM independently and then with another. They
> work.
> The system will boot with 1GB, 2 GB, or 4GB using those exact DIMMS. It
> just
> will not boot once the total is over 4GB.
>
> The motherboard and memory manufacturers say it is an OS issue. I'm no
> expert, but what little I know seems to indicate that they are right.
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Remove XP. Find out how to run Vista at 8GB before you consider doing
>> anything else. You have to establish if the chipset can even support
>> Vista
>> x64 on your board with four dimms installed. I believe you are using
>> DDR2
>> 667 memory so that should not be the issue. The problem is probably one
>> of
>> timings and not software.
>>
>> "MrKit" <MrKit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:1782A276-CA1A-455F-BCBF-C792B419ADAE@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>> >I have an ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe Series Wifi Edition motherboard, which
>> >is
>> > capable of running 8GB of RAM. In have a Phenom 9500 quad-core cpu,
>> > which
>> > is
>> > 64-bit. I have 4 DIMMS of KVR667D2N5/2G, which is the RAM the
>> > motherboard
>> > manufacturer says runs in the board at 8GB.
>> >
>> > I run Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Sp1 and Windows XP Pro SP 2 as
>> > dual-booting Os'.
>> >
>> > I cannot boot to the desktop with 4GB of RAM in, and have tried all the
>> > RAM
>> > DIMMS alone and in 4GB configurations of all which works. It is in
>> > continual
>> > reboot with 8GB installed.
>> >
>> > I tried the KB929777 patch for 64-bit Vista, but it reported that it is
>> > not
>> > for this system.
>> >
>> > ASUS claims that the master boot record is the problem, but VISTA
>> > always
>> > crashes before it will let me fix the master boot record, or reinstall
>> > Vista
>> > or anything.
>> >
>> > If you can help, please do so.[/color]
>>
>>[/color][/color]

Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable
computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB.

The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not be
able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues like
that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista because
the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong.

Oh well.

"Curious" <spammenot@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:OrCyC3g2IHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Maybe the information in the following link will help:
>
> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us[/url]
>
>[/color]

Colin Barnhorst wrote:[color=blue]
> Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable
> computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB.
>
> The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not
> be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues
> like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista
> because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong.
>
> Oh well.
>
> "Curious" <spammenot@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OrCyC3g2IHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Maybe the information in the following link will help:
>>
>> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us[/url]
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]


Yes, Asus have got it wrong before. My old machine says it can take up
to 2MB but install that and it reports something off the wall like 50
bytes or something and crashes. New BIOS does not fix, it is a hardware
addressing defect apparently.

I never claimed to have superior knowledge of the subject. I just gave my
reasons for coming to the conclusion that it was a software problem. Again,
each DIMM works perfectly well on its own or in combination with any other of
them. It is only when 3 or 4 are used that the problem occurs.

I have extensively tested the hardware and software to determine the cause
and solution. Now, if I arrive at an improper conclusion, I am teachable and
willing to try other things. I am just not willing to uninstall Windows XP
Pro in order to try and fix something in Windows Vista. Giving an answer here
does not mean the recipient MUST obey everything you say to do.

I think your comment "But I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject"
is unhelpful and downright rude. I want help from someone who wants to help
me rather than someone who wants to ridicule me. This is a computer issue,
which should be unemotional. I just want to solve it without the personality
issues.

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Incorrect. The POST showing all the ram is important but does not mean an
> OS will be stable. This is a known issue and involves many hardware issues.
> A 64bit OS is more demanding on a memory controller than a 32bit OS even in
> 4GB of ram. It is called the "fourth **** dimm" problem and you probably
> won't find a software solution.
>
> Just because a mobo is spec'd to support 8GB of ram and spec'd to support
> certain dram speeds does NOT mean that the board can support 8GB at the
> higher rated speeds using a 64bit OS.
>
> But I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject.
>
> "MrKit" <MrKit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:593C7154-A996-42A2-B1CE-C2F16260ADEC@microsoft.com...[color=green]
> > Thanks, but not thanks. I am not going to destroy my XP installation and
> > then
> > go through later on reinstalling it, begging on the phone for Microsoft to
> > activate it because it has been reinstalled so many times (back when
> > Microsoft insisted I uninstall it in order to get support - now at least
> > my
> > support has run out and I can't afford their paid support for this
> > overpriced
> > OS).
> >
> >
> > Taking away the functionality I have is not the answer.
> >
> > Kingston, the DIMM manufacturer, gave me the timing and other settings for
> > the memory. It is also programmed on the DIMMS themselves, to be read
> > directly by the BIOS. And, since the BIOS properly reports the 8GB of RAM,
> > which is prior to the OS running, the DIMMS are working properly. It MUST
> > be
> > an OS issue.
> >
> > The BIOS accepts the RAM. It is the OS (XP Pro and Vista) that are having
> > the problem.
> >
> > Remember, I tested each DIMM independently and then with another. They
> > work.
> > The system will boot with 1GB, 2 GB, or 4GB using those exact DIMMS. It
> > just
> > will not boot once the total is over 4GB.
> >
> > The motherboard and memory manufacturers say it is an OS issue. I'm no
> > expert, but what little I know seems to indicate that they are right.
> >
> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Remove XP. Find out how to run Vista at 8GB before you consider doing
> >> anything else. You have to establish if the chipset can even support
> >> Vista
> >> x64 on your board with four dimms installed. I believe you are using
> >> DDR2
> >> 667 memory so that should not be the issue. The problem is probably one
> >> of
> >> timings and not software.
> >>
> >> "MrKit" <MrKit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1782A276-CA1A-455F-BCBF-C792B419ADAE@microsoft.com...
> >> >I have an ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe Series Wifi Edition motherboard, which
> >> >is
> >> > capable of running 8GB of RAM. In have a Phenom 9500 quad-core cpu,
> >> > which
> >> > is
> >> > 64-bit. I have 4 DIMMS of KVR667D2N5/2G, which is the RAM the
> >> > motherboard
> >> > manufacturer says runs in the board at 8GB.
> >> >
> >> > I run Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Sp1 and Windows XP Pro SP 2 as
> >> > dual-booting Os'.
> >> >
> >> > I cannot boot to the desktop with 4GB of RAM in, and have tried all the
> >> > RAM
> >> > DIMMS alone and in 4GB configurations of all which works. It is in
> >> > continual
> >> > reboot with 8GB installed.
> >> >
> >> > I tried the KB929777 patch for 64-bit Vista, but it reported that it is
> >> > not
> >> > for this system.
> >> >
> >> > ASUS claims that the master boot record is the problem, but VISTA
> >> > always
> >> > crashes before it will let me fix the master boot record, or reinstall
> >> > Vista
> >> > or anything.
> >> >
> >> > If you can help, please do so.
> >>
> >>[/color][/color]
>[/color]

On the surface I would agree with you about ASUS. They can and do make
mistakes or misrepresent things in order to sell their products sometimes, or
to keep from fulfilling their duties as spelled out in their warranty.
However, I did talk to the people at Kingston, who tested the motherboard
model at 8GB with their memory. They are the originators of the claim that
the board could run at 8GBs using this particular memory model.

It is possible, I suppose, that the memory controller on the Phenom is the
problem, but what I need is a definate test to make absolute certain that
this is the cause. If it is, I can then attack it from there, fixing the
problem or returning/replacing the cpu. However, this would be too expensive
unless there was solid, verifiable evidence that the memory controller is the
problem.

I know nothing of memory controllers on cpus. I just first heard about them
a few days ago. So, I don't know how they work or anything. However, it just
seems to me that if the BIOS accepts and reports the 8GBs, then doesn't than
mean the motherboard and cpu have also accepted it? I am willing to contact
the cpu manufacturer. I just need to learn more about the memory controller
on the cpu, and whether there is a clear test to determine whether it is the
culprit.

"Charlie Tame" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:[color=green]
> > Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable
> > computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB.
> >
> > The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not
> > be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues
> > like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista
> > because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong.
> >
> > Oh well.
> >
> > "Curious" <spammenot@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> > news:OrCyC3g2IHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> >> Maybe the information in the following link will help:
> >>
> >> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us[/url]
> >>
> >>[/color]
> >[/color]
>
>
> Yes, Asus have got it wrong before. My old machine says it can take up
> to 2MB but install that and it reports something off the wall like 50
> bytes or something and crashes. New BIOS does not fix, it is a hardware
> addressing defect apparently.
>
>[/color]

The problem is timings while accessing the memory. The BIOS is simply
reporting the presence of devices compatible with the mobo. The BIOS is not
predicting success of an installed OS.

For mobo manufacturers and cpu makers, it is a real estate problem. That is
why I call it the "fourth **** dimm" problem sometimes. The electrical
distance out and back from the memory controller to the furthest dimm
determines the maximum frequency that can be supported and also sustain
stability. There is a point at which the memory controller is overwhelmed
or cannot keep up. Slightly increasing the dram voltage (no more than 0.1v)
can help in a marginal situation as can lowering the dram speed if the
highest rated ram for the mobo is in use. I think you are already using 667
ram which is a very comfortable dram speed for current boards so I don't see
that as an issue. But the memory controller is integrated on the Phenom so
while the cpu is compatible with the board and 8GB of ram is compatible with
the board, is your model Phenom AND 8GB of your ram compatible on your mobo?
That is the question. It is never the individual component specs but the
combination that is such a headache to work out at times.

"MrKit" <MrKit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EB3F39FF-288C-487E-B6FC-C433018B68C3@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> On the surface I would agree with you about ASUS. They can and do make
> mistakes or misrepresent things in order to sell their products sometimes,
> or
> to keep from fulfilling their duties as spelled out in their warranty.
> However, I did talk to the people at Kingston, who tested the motherboard
> model at 8GB with their memory. They are the originators of the claim that
> the board could run at 8GBs using this particular memory model.
>
> It is possible, I suppose, that the memory controller on the Phenom is the
> problem, but what I need is a definate test to make absolute certain that
> this is the cause. If it is, I can then attack it from there, fixing the
> problem or returning/replacing the cpu. However, this would be too
> expensive
> unless there was solid, verifiable evidence that the memory controller is
> the
> problem.
>
> I know nothing of memory controllers on cpus. I just first heard about
> them
> a few days ago. So, I don't know how they work or anything. However, it
> just
> seems to me that if the BIOS accepts and reports the 8GBs, then doesn't
> than
> mean the motherboard and cpu have also accepted it? I am willing to
> contact
> the cpu manufacturer. I just need to learn more about the memory
> controller
> on the cpu, and whether there is a clear test to determine whether it is
> the
> culprit.
>
> "Charlie Tame" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an
>> > unstable
>> > computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB.
>> >
>> > The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not
>> > be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues
>> > like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista
>> > because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong.
>> >
>> > Oh well.
>> >
>> > "Curious" <spammenot@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>> > news:OrCyC3g2IHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> >> Maybe the information in the following link will help:
>> >>
>> >> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us[/url]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >[/color]
>>
>>
>> Yes, Asus have got it wrong before. My old machine says it can take up
>> to 2MB but install that and it reports something off the wall like 50
>> bytes or something and crashes. New BIOS does not fix, it is a hardware
>> addressing defect apparently.
>>
>>[/color][/color]

Right. I agree with you there. As I said, I did contact the DIMM manufacturer
and get the exact timing and voltage to use with this memory as well as this
motherboard. They also said that each DIMM is embedded with the SPD which
tells the BIOS which timing and voltage to use. In this case, they are cas
latency 5, ras cas 5, row precharged delay 5 and voltage 1.8. I even hard-set
these in the BIOS to override the SPD with the same results. To me, this
eliminates the SPD as the problem. The BIOS had read it properly and set it
for the DIMMS in the first place.

And, I contacted AMD, the manufacturer or the Phenom 9500 in order to
investigate any issues there - with the memory controller or something else.

ASUS, Kingston and AMD all say that the BIOS is properly reading the SPD in
the DIMMS and utilizing all the RAM. They each say this is an OS issue.
Microsoft will not discuss the issue with me for less than $59 despite the
fact that I paid full price for both Microsoft Os' in use on the computer.
When one pays $399 for an operating system, they should get better treatment.

This is the first incident I ever brought here. All previous issues that
MIGHT be Microsoft-related I handled alone, with friends, or with Microsoft
in the first 90 days. For one thing, although I have been using computers
almost daily since 1978, I am not a good typist and it takes a long time to
write these messages and remove most of the errors.

I had hoped to run into someone with my same motherboard, cpu, memory and
Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit edition, to see how they make it all play
nicely together. That would have been great, but since it didn't happen, I
get to deal with real life on life's terms.

Frankly, all I am left to do is to examine the issue from all possible
sides, and try those solutions which are the least destructive and seem most
likely to work.

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
[color=blue]
> The problem is timings while accessing the memory. The BIOS is simply
> reporting the presence of devices compatible with the mobo. The BIOS is not
> predicting success of an installed OS.
>
> For mobo manufacturers and cpu makers, it is a real estate problem. That is
> why I call it the "fourth **** dimm" problem sometimes. The electrical
> distance out and back from the memory controller to the furthest dimm
> determines the maximum frequency that can be supported and also sustain
> stability. There is a point at which the memory controller is overwhelmed
> or cannot keep up. Slightly increasing the dram voltage (no more than 0.1v)
> can help in a marginal situation as can lowering the dram speed if the
> highest rated ram for the mobo is in use. I think you are already using 667
> ram which is a very comfortable dram speed for current boards so I don't see
> that as an issue. But the memory controller is integrated on the Phenom so
> while the cpu is compatible with the board and 8GB of ram is compatible with
> the board, is your model Phenom AND 8GB of your ram compatible on your mobo?
> That is the question. It is never the individual component specs but the
> combination that is such a headache to work out at times.
>
> "MrKit" <MrKit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:EB3F39FF-288C-487E-B6FC-C433018B68C3@microsoft.com...[color=green]
> > On the surface I would agree with you about ASUS. They can and do make
> > mistakes or misrepresent things in order to sell their products sometimes,
> > or
> > to keep from fulfilling their duties as spelled out in their warranty.
> > However, I did talk to the people at Kingston, who tested the motherboard
> > model at 8GB with their memory. They are the originators of the claim that
> > the board could run at 8GBs using this particular memory model.
> >
> > It is possible, I suppose, that the memory controller on the Phenom is the
> > problem, but what I need is a definate test to make absolute certain that
> > this is the cause. If it is, I can then attack it from there, fixing the
> > problem or returning/replacing the cpu. However, this would be too
> > expensive
> > unless there was solid, verifiable evidence that the memory controller is
> > the
> > problem.
> >
> > I know nothing of memory controllers on cpus. I just first heard about
> > them
> > a few days ago. So, I don't know how they work or anything. However, it
> > just
> > seems to me that if the BIOS accepts and reports the 8GBs, then doesn't
> > than
> > mean the motherboard and cpu have also accepted it? I am willing to
> > contact
> > the cpu manufacturer. I just need to learn more about the memory
> > controller
> > on the cpu, and whether there is a clear test to determine whether it is
> > the
> > culprit.
> >
> > "Charlie Tame" wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> >> > Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an
> >> > unstable
> >> > computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB.
> >> >
> >> > The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not
> >> > be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues
> >> > like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista
> >> > because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong.
> >> >
> >> > Oh well.
> >> >
> >> > "Curious" <spammenot@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> >> > news:OrCyC3g2IHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> >> Maybe the information in the following link will help:
> >> >>
> >> >> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us[/url]
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, Asus have got it wrong before. My old machine says it can take up
> >> to 2MB but install that and it reports something off the wall like 50
> >> bytes or something and crashes. New BIOS does not fix, it is a hardware
> >> addressing defect apparently.
> >>
> >>[/color][/color]
>[/color]

If you read the entire article you will find lots of discussion about
requiring 64 bit Vista in some situations and at lease one reference to 64
bit Vista with 8GB installed.
"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AF928F4E-EE1B-46CA-871D-0E876FC78222@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable
> computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB.
>
> The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not be
> able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues like
> that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista because
> the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong.
>
> Oh well.
>
> "Curious" <spammenot@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OrCyC3g2IHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Maybe the information in the following link will help:
>>
>> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us[/url]
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]

If you a retail copy of the OS then you are entitled to free installation
support, period. The only other possibility is an OEM pack, and you would
be out of luck there. The purchaser of an OEM pack is responsible for
supporting the customer for whom he installed the software.

I would simplify. I would get XP off for the time being. I would focus on
Vista because it is the one that can access 8GB of ram. XP can't anyway.
You can always reinstall XP from an image to a second partition or drive and
do the usual repair of the dual-boot startup from the MS KB article on
installing XP second, or by using VistaBoot Pro. It is really hard to
troubleshoot a computer as it is and simplification is priceless. In fact,
it is an art form. :)

"MrKit" <MrKit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B4B32F97-7B7A-4C83-A40B-B328576575AC@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Right. I agree with you there. As I said, I did contact the DIMM
> manufacturer
> and get the exact timing and voltage to use with this memory as well as
> this
> motherboard. They also said that each DIMM is embedded with the SPD which
> tells the BIOS which timing and voltage to use. In this case, they are cas
> latency 5, ras cas 5, row precharged delay 5 and voltage 1.8. I even
> hard-set
> these in the BIOS to override the SPD with the same results. To me, this
> eliminates the SPD as the problem. The BIOS had read it properly and set
> it
> for the DIMMS in the first place.
>
> And, I contacted AMD, the manufacturer or the Phenom 9500 in order to
> investigate any issues there - with the memory controller or something
> else.
>
> ASUS, Kingston and AMD all say that the BIOS is properly reading the SPD
> in
> the DIMMS and utilizing all the RAM. They each say this is an OS issue.
> Microsoft will not discuss the issue with me for less than $59 despite the
> fact that I paid full price for both Microsoft Os' in use on the computer.
> When one pays $399 for an operating system, they should get better
> treatment.
>
> This is the first incident I ever brought here. All previous issues that
> MIGHT be Microsoft-related I handled alone, with friends, or with
> Microsoft
> in the first 90 days. For one thing, although I have been using computers
> almost daily since 1978, I am not a good typist and it takes a long time
> to
> write these messages and remove most of the errors.
>
> I had hoped to run into someone with my same motherboard, cpu, memory and
> Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit edition, to see how they make it all
> play
> nicely together. That would have been great, but since it didn't happen, I
> get to deal with real life on life's terms.
>
> Frankly, all I am left to do is to examine the issue from all possible
> sides, and try those solutions which are the least destructive and seem
> most
> likely to work.
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> The problem is timings while accessing the memory. The BIOS is simply
>> reporting the presence of devices compatible with the mobo. The BIOS is
>> not
>> predicting success of an installed OS.
>>
>> For mobo manufacturers and cpu makers, it is a real estate problem. That
>> is
>> why I call it the "fourth **** dimm" problem sometimes. The electrical
>> distance out and back from the memory controller to the furthest dimm
>> determines the maximum frequency that can be supported and also sustain
>> stability. There is a point at which the memory controller is
>> overwhelmed
>> or cannot keep up. Slightly increasing the dram voltage (no more than
>> 0.1v)
>> can help in a marginal situation as can lowering the dram speed if the
>> highest rated ram for the mobo is in use. I think you are already using
>> 667
>> ram which is a very comfortable dram speed for current boards so I don't
>> see
>> that as an issue. But the memory controller is integrated on the Phenom
>> so
>> while the cpu is compatible with the board and 8GB of ram is compatible
>> with
>> the board, is your model Phenom AND 8GB of your ram compatible on your
>> mobo?
>> That is the question. It is never the individual component specs but the
>> combination that is such a headache to work out at times.
>>
>> "MrKit" <MrKit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:EB3F39FF-288C-487E-B6FC-C433018B68C3@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>> > On the surface I would agree with you about ASUS. They can and do make
>> > mistakes or misrepresent things in order to sell their products
>> > sometimes,
>> > or
>> > to keep from fulfilling their duties as spelled out in their warranty.
>> > However, I did talk to the people at Kingston, who tested the
>> > motherboard
>> > model at 8GB with their memory. They are the originators of the claim
>> > that
>> > the board could run at 8GBs using this particular memory model.
>> >
>> > It is possible, I suppose, that the memory controller on the Phenom is
>> > the
>> > problem, but what I need is a definate test to make absolute certain
>> > that
>> > this is the cause. If it is, I can then attack it from there, fixing
>> > the
>> > problem or returning/replacing the cpu. However, this would be too
>> > expensive
>> > unless there was solid, verifiable evidence that the memory controller
>> > is
>> > the
>> > problem.
>> >
>> > I know nothing of memory controllers on cpus. I just first heard about
>> > them
>> > a few days ago. So, I don't know how they work or anything. However, it
>> > just
>> > seems to me that if the BIOS accepts and reports the 8GBs, then doesn't
>> > than
>> > mean the motherboard and cpu have also accepted it? I am willing to
>> > contact
>> > the cpu manufacturer. I just need to learn more about the memory
>> > controller
>> > on the cpu, and whether there is a clear test to determine whether it
>> > is
>> > the
>> > culprit.
>> >
>> > "Charlie Tame" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> >> > Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an
>> >> > unstable
>> >> > computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB.
>> >> >
>> >> > The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may
>> >> > not
>> >> > be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are
>> >> > issues
>> >> > like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be
>> >> > Vista
>> >> > because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong.
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh well.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Curious" <spammenot@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>> >> > news:OrCyC3g2IHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> Maybe the information in the following link will help:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us[/url]
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, Asus have got it wrong before. My old machine says it can take up
>> >> to 2MB but install that and it reports something off the wall like 50
>> >> bytes or something and crashes. New BIOS does not fix, it is a
>> >> hardware
>> >> addressing defect apparently.
>> >>
>> >>[/color]
>>[/color][/color]

Yes, it points out that x64 is required to access all of 4GB of ram. That
is the workaround.

But the issue involving not seeing all of 4GB does not bear on x64. It is a
problem peculiar to the 32bit clients. The KB is complex. It first
addresses a Windows 32bit issue only, the effect of the BIOS reserving
memory for devices. You'll notice through the whole first half that all the
references are specifically 32bit Windows.

The subject changes midway, beginning with the Workaround. At that point it
discusses the requirements for x64 to see 4GB with 4GB installed. Most
64bit computers meet these requirements now. I did have one AMD64 x2 box
that needed the BIOS memory remapping option turned off or I would only see
3.5GB. But the Workaround does not help the 32bit Windows user. Notice
that the last bullet in the Workaround states a 64bit edition of Windows is
required.

Then comes the whole business about PAE which is pretty irrelevant to how
much memory can be accessed by the OS. It is relevant to program space, but
by this time the KB has suffered severe mission creep and the PAE part
should have been merely a link to the same info elsewhere.

PAE gets some techies excited but PAE can never be fully implemented in a
Windows client now. Its use for extending memory addressing also requires a
carefully controlled computing environement. All hardware and software must
be PAE aware. The use of non-PAE compliant software would bring a system to
its knees. That's why you only see support written into server editions of
Windows. When was the last time you checked Ad-Aware to see if it was PAE
compatible? :)

"Curious" <spammenot@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:C3F1EF76-CA46-4CFC-B3D6-447C173B279C@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> If you read the entire article you will find lots of discussion about
> requiring 64 bit Vista in some situations and at lease one reference to 64
> bit Vista with 8GB installed.
> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:AF928F4E-EE1B-46CA-871D-0E876FC78222@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>> Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable
>> computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB.
>>
>> The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not
>> be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues
>> like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista
>> because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong.
>>
>> Oh well.
>>
>> "Curious" <spammenot@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:OrCyC3g2IHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Maybe the information in the following link will help:
>>>
>>> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us[/url]
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>[/color]

Everything you say is true. I posted the link since their was some
information in it that applied to the subject of this thread and which might
be of benefit to MrKit. I certainly was not trying to imply that the link's
content would solve the Op's problem.
"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B8E346C1-E7B3-4F2D-9B48-329A52B9A838@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Yes, it points out that x64 is required to access all of 4GB of ram. That
> is the workaround.
>
> But the issue involving not seeing all of 4GB does not bear on x64. It is
> a problem peculiar to the 32bit clients. The KB is complex. It first
> addresses a Windows 32bit issue only, the effect of the BIOS reserving
> memory for devices. You'll notice through the whole first half that all
> the references are specifically 32bit Windows.
>
> The subject changes midway, beginning with the Workaround. At that point
> it discusses the requirements for x64 to see 4GB with 4GB installed. Most
> 64bit computers meet these requirements now. I did have one AMD64 x2 box
> that needed the BIOS memory remapping option turned off or I would only
> see 3.5GB. But the Workaround does not help the 32bit Windows user.
> Notice that the last bullet in the Workaround states a 64bit edition of
> Windows is required.
>
> Then comes the whole business about PAE which is pretty irrelevant to how
> much memory can be accessed by the OS. It is relevant to program space,
> but by this time the KB has suffered severe mission creep and the PAE part
> should have been merely a link to the same info elsewhere.
>
> PAE gets some techies excited but PAE can never be fully implemented in a
> Windows client now. Its use for extending memory addressing also requires
> a carefully controlled computing environement. All hardware and software
> must be PAE aware. The use of non-PAE compliant software would bring a
> system to its knees. That's why you only see support written into server
> editions of Windows. When was the last time you checked Ad-Aware to see
> if it was PAE compatible? :)
>
> "Curious" <spammenot@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:C3F1EF76-CA46-4CFC-B3D6-447C173B279C@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>> If you read the entire article you will find lots of discussion about
>> requiring 64 bit Vista in some situations and at lease one reference to
>> 64 bit Vista with 8GB installed.
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:AF928F4E-EE1B-46CA-871D-0E876FC78222@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>>> Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable
>>> computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB.
>>>
>>> The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not
>>> be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues
>>> like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista
>>> because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong.
>>>
>>> Oh well.
>>>
>>> "Curious" <spammenot@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:OrCyC3g2IHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Maybe the information in the following link will help:
>>>>
>>>> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us[/url]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>[/color]