Trouble booting now totally out of service

kony wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:08:23 -0700, Robert Heiling
wrote:

kony wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:10:25 -0700, Robert Heiling
wrote:

The one I found is the Biostar M7VKE Socket A at:
http://www.gearxs.com/gearxs/product_info.php?products_id=3624m Since the board I'm replacing is a
PCChips M805LR with VIA KT133 chipset, AMD Duron and Athlon Socket A, PC133 SDRAM up to 1
GB, and AGP 4X (AGP2.0), the specs are very close.

That's not a very high quality board, though it might be
sufficient for a couple years use. It isn't KT133 though,
it's the integrated-video version of it. That may be fine,
windows may make the minor changes (which are only device
names, functionally it's the same chipset plus the video),
but I'd think it might be better to go with the KT133A since
you don't need the integrated video. SNIP

Sorry to bug you again on this, but I'd like your opinion if you would please. I've located another board
that fits all my specs - MSI built, Socket A, KT133, AGP, mATX, 200MHz FSB, etc and I can use my PC133
memory. They claim the boards are OEM overstock or pulls. Boards like this are pretty old and the technology
is outdated I would think, so the ones I've previously seen were priced from ~$20-$32. In this case, they're
asking $80 and claim that they will have no trouble selling them at that price. Who would buy them except
people in the same boat as I am with a failed motherboard? What do you think about that $80 price? Maybe I'm
just being too conservative.

$80 is a bit overpriced, they might not've cost that much at
many vendors when brand new and modern technology. I can't
help but think the whole reason they still have them is
because nobody pays $80 for it these days. Even so, this
can be what happens to older hardware- the lowest cost
vendors sell out and so on, till online the high-priced
options remain.

"Overstock or pulls" is a pretty big difference though...
No way I'd pay $80 for a pull today.

Here's one for $40, there may be others if you look around
the 'net.
http://www.targetpcinc.com/Details.a...mID=2485&Res=2

I"m not claiming it's a great board, but rather I have no
experience with it and generally avoid Chaintech. Even so,
$40 less with option to return it if it doesn't work right
seems a worthwhile risk.

and yet another question! As mentioned in another post, I ordered the Chaintech board above that you found at
TargetPC, it has arrived, and I've got everything apart and am ready to drop the cpu & memory into the new board
and install it. However, before I do .....

The new board is the CT-7AIA and has a KT133 (note: not a KT133A) chipset and Socket A. Its included manual says:
"Supports AMD Socket A processors up to 950MHz". My cpu is 1000Mhz (1GHz and I read on another review site of a
different board that: "As with any other Socket A based board, the issue of CPU multiplier selection is locked
after by the CPU itself with an internally locked multiplier."). I've been so used to seeing the websites give
Socket A claims of up to 1.2GHz & 1.5GHz that I didn't realize that the TargetPC site didn't mention cpu speed at
all. In fact, my old board, which is also KT133 claims support for 500MHz to 1GHz. Is it possibly the case that
950MHz was the fastest Athlon out at the time they wrote that manual and that it will actually support 1GHz? or am
I in trouble?

Bob

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:09:45 -0700, Robert Heiling
wrote:


Here's one for $40, there may be others if you look around
the 'net.
http://www.targetpcinc.com/Details.a...mID=2485&Res=2

I"m not claiming it's a great board, but rather I have no
experience with it and generally avoid Chaintech. Even so,
$40 less with option to return it if it doesn't work right
seems a worthwhile risk.

and yet another question! As mentioned in another post, I ordered the Chaintech board above that you found at
TargetPC, it has arrived, and I've got everything apart and am ready to drop the cpu & memory into the new board
and install it. However, before I do .....

The new board is the CT-7AIA and has a KT133 (note: not a KT133A) chipset and Socket A. Its included manual says:
"Supports AMD Socket A processors up to 950MHz". My cpu is 1000Mhz (1GHz and I read on another review site of a
different board that: "As with any other Socket A based board, the issue of CPU multiplier selection is locked
after by the CPU itself with an internally locked multiplier."). I've been so used to seeing the websites give
Socket A claims of up to 1.2GHz & 1.5GHz that I didn't realize that the TargetPC site didn't mention cpu speed at
all. In fact, my old board, which is also KT133 claims support for 500MHz to 1GHz. Is it possibly the case that
950MHz was the fastest Athlon out at the time they wrote that manual and that it will actually support 1GHz? or am
I in trouble?

Yes that is possible.
Install the CPU, video and memory for the time being.
When it posts, note what the board reports for CPU.
If necessary (and possible) adjust bios settings or onboard
jumpers to accomodate your CPU- keeping in mind that KT133
(non-"A") does not support 133FSB (I dont recall the
particularly of your system at this time and I'd deleted the
original post).

Install floppy drive and run memtest86 to confirm memory
stability. Memtest86 will display the CPU frequency too
even if the BIOS POST screen misidentifies the CPU. Trust
memtest86's report over the BIOS report, BUT also you can
later run a windows CPU ID tool to confirm operational
frequency. For example, "WCPUID" would tell you, as would
"CPU-Z", http://www.cpuid.org/download/cpu-z-129.zip

Robert Heiling wrote:

Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
Encoding: 7bit

If you want to be heard on newsgroups, do not use html nor mime
encoding. They are potentially dangerous, and the better ISPs will
simply remove them from newsgroup traffic. Usenext is a pure text
medium.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

kony wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:09:45 -0700, Robert Heiling
wrote:

Here's one for $40, there may be others if you look around
the 'net.
http://www.targetpcinc.com/Details.a...mID=2485&Res=2

I"m not claiming it's a great board, but rather I have no
experience with it and generally avoid Chaintech. Even so,
$40 less with option to return it if it doesn't work right
seems a worthwhile risk.

and yet another question! As mentioned in another post, I ordered the Chaintech board above that you found at
TargetPC, it has arrived, and I've got everything apart and am ready to drop the cpu & memory into the new board
and install it. However, before I do .....

The new board is the CT-7AIA and has a KT133 (note: not a KT133A) chipset and Socket A. Its included manual says:
"Supports AMD Socket A processors up to 950MHz". My cpu is 1000Mhz (1GHz and I read on another review site of a
different board that: "As with any other Socket A based board, the issue of CPU multiplier selection is locked
after by the CPU itself with an internally locked multiplier."). I've been so used to seeing the websites give
Socket A claims of up to 1.2GHz & 1.5GHz that I didn't realize that the TargetPC site didn't mention cpu speed at
all. In fact, my old board, which is also KT133 claims support for 500MHz to 1GHz. Is it possibly the case that
950MHz was the fastest Athlon out at the time they wrote that manual and that it will actually support 1GHz? or am
I in trouble?

Yes that is possible.
Install the CPU, video and memory for the time being.

Then you think it will even run at all in spite of that speed conflict? That's my only real concern! I don't really
care if it runs at 950Mhz or 1000Mhz, just so it will work. I didn't want to touch the new mb if it wasn't going to
work and I had to return it.

When it posts, note what the board reports for CPU.
If necessary (and possible) adjust bios settings or onboard
jumpers to accomodate your CPU- keeping in mind that KT133
(non-"A") does not support 133FSB (I dont recall the
particularly of your system at this time and I'd deleted the
original post).

This one has a FSB jumper for 100/133. You may be thinking of 266 FSB which I've seen the KT133A supports in the later
CT-7AIA5 version of this board per: http://www.zen26266.zen.co.uk/CT-7AIA5-page1.htm

Install floppy drive and run memtest86 to confirm memory
stability.

I have the PC133 memory so it shouldn't be a problem.

Memtest86 will display the CPU frequency too
even if the BIOS POST screen misidentifies the CPU. Trust
memtest86's report over the BIOS report, BUT also you can
later run a windows CPU ID tool to confirm operational
frequency. For example, "WCPUID" would tell you, as would
"CPU-Z", http://www.cpuid.org/download/cpu-z-129.zip

Thanks again for the great help. If you give the go-ahead, it should be running sometime tomorrow.

Bob

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:21:39 -0700, Robert Heiling wrote:


System placed in service Jan 2001:
PC-Chips M805LR motherboard with VIA KT133 chipset, Athlon 1GHz cpu,
512MB SDRAM, AGP video It has run with a number of HD's & OS's over the
years including Linux, Win98 & Win2K, & with LILO and NT-loader.

Try taking out the CMOS battery for a minute then put it back in, that
will clear out the CMOS RAM. It's just a hunch but it's possible that some
parameter is in a strange state. If that doesn't work try disconnecting
the Floppy and the CDROM and see if you can boot off of the disk.

CBFalconer wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:

Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
Encoding: 7bit

If you want to be heard on newsgroups, do not use html nor mime
encoding. They are potentially dangerous, and the better ISPs will
simply remove them from newsgroup traffic. Usenext is a pure text
medium.

I have previously explained the problem to you, so kindly get off my
case. I've been posting in newsgroups since the mid-90's and with
basically this same software and haven't had any complaints until yours.
Something, and I haven't had time to find out what, is causing my
newsreader to respond to what it thinks is html. My linewidth output is
also usually at 72, but since you brought that up, wasn't that to
accomodate teletype machines? and isn't that all a bit dated like you?

In any case, I don't take kindly to net nazis like yourself, and don't
waste much time in flame wars either. So get lost!

Bob

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:21:39 -0700, Robert Heiling wrote:


System placed in service Jan 2001:
PC-Chips M805LR motherboard with VIA KT133 chipset, Athlon 1GHz cpu,
512MB SDRAM, AGP video It has run with a number of HD's & OS's over the
years including Linux, Win98 & Win2K, & with LILO and NT-loader.

Try taking out the CMOS battery for a minute then put it back in, that
will clear out the CMOS RAM. It's just a hunch but it's possible that some
parameter is in a strange state. If that doesn't work try disconnecting
the Floppy and the CDROM and see if you can boot off of the disk.

Thanks for the response, but it's all been hashed out and the board has vented
capacitors and is toast. I've already got a new replacement sitting here ready
to install if it will handle my cpu.

Bob

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:14:12 -0700, Robert Heiling
wrote:


Yes that is possible.
Install the CPU, video and memory for the time being.

Then you think it will even run at all in spite of that speed conflict? That's my only real concern! I don't really
care if it runs at 950Mhz or 1000Mhz, just so it will work. I didn't want to touch the new mb if it wasn't going to
work and I had to return it.

Mostly likely it will run at the correct frequency but
merely not be able to make a positive ID on the CPU. It may
correctly display the operational speed, or may display
something *wrong*. For this reason it is necessary to
confirm the speed with alternate methods as mentioned
previously. It is least likely that it would run at 950
instead of 1000MHz. More like it would not POST at all, but
the odds are it will.

I cannot guarantee it, but think it is worth trying. If
there is a newer bios available you might want to update the
bios, particularly if the board has a relatively early bios
version. This may combat other bios issues in additon to
CPU identification.

"In general" such boards did support 1GHz CPU, within the
limit of the [no support for 133FSB with non-'A' KT133] it
was the issue you mentioned that they simply didn't have
that speed yet when the spec for the board was produced- and
with lesser board brands/support, they may not update their
specs for it later, and sometimes won't even fully disclose
the changes a particular bios incorporates if there's even a
newer bios available. After flashing a bios, clear CMOS.



When it posts, note what the board reports for CPU.
If necessary (and possible) adjust bios settings or onboard
jumpers to accomodate your CPU- keeping in mind that KT133
(non-"A") does not support 133FSB (I dont recall the
particularly of your system at this time and I'd deleted the
original post).

This one has a FSB jumper for 100/133. You may be thinking of 266 FSB which I've seen the KT133A supports in the later
CT-7AIA5 version of this board per: http://www.zen26266.zen.co.uk/CT-7AIA5-page1.htm


No, KT133 non-"A" does not actually support 133FSB. It does
not matter if it has a jumper. Other non-supportive boards
also had such a jumper. Via originally had intended to be
able to get KT133 running up to 133FSB, but wasn't able to
and shipped out the chips they had at the time. LATER they
got 133FSB working right and this was the distinction of
KT133A.


Install floppy drive and run memtest86 to confirm memory
stability.

I have the PC133 memory so it shouldn't be a problem.

Not so easy to assume, the board itself can be an issue even
when memory is spec'd higher, especially when a board looks
up SPD info and finds a module spec'd for (as an example)
CAS3 @ 133MHz but CAS2 @ 100MHz. In such cases there is the
potential for it to still be running the memory at most
aggressive CAS timing possible. Resolution if there were
this kind of problem is obviously different memory, or
manually setting a higher CAS #, or other things we need not
delve into at this time.

Robert Heiling wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
Robert Heiling wrote:

Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
Encoding: 7bit

If you want to be heard on newsgroups, do not use html nor mime
encoding. They are potentially dangerous, and the better ISPs will
simply remove them from newsgroup traffic. Usenext is a pure text
medium.

I have previously explained the problem to you, so kindly get off my
case. I've been posting in newsgroups since the mid-90's and with
basically this same software and haven't had any complaints until yours.
Something, and I haven't had time to find out what, is causing my
newsreader to respond to what it thinks is html. My linewidth output is
also usually at 72, but since you brought that up, wasn't that to
accomodate teletype machines? and isn't that all a bit dated like you?

In any case, I don't take kindly to net nazis like yourself, and don't
waste much time in flame wars either. So get lost!

My, you are a surly one. I was really mean to explain some of the
facts of life to you. Do you really think I keep a list of silly
html posters who have been told the facts and responded with ugly
noises? You might consider that the cause of the message was the
appearance of the silly html, not your identity. After that you
might ponder on who placed that html on usenet in the first place.

However, if you have been doing this since the mid 90s, you do
appear to be fairly slow on the uptake.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

CBFalconer wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
Robert Heiling wrote:

Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
Encoding: 7bit

If you want to be heard on newsgroups, do not use html nor mime
encoding. They are potentially dangerous, and the better ISPs will
simply remove them from newsgroup traffic. Usenext is a pure text
medium.

I have previously explained the problem to you, so kindly get off my
case. I've been posting in newsgroups since the mid-90's and with
basically this same software and haven't had any complaints until yours.
Something, and I haven't had time to find out what, is causing my
newsreader to respond to what it thinks is html. My linewidth output is
also usually at 72, but since you brought that up, wasn't that to
accomodate teletype machines? and isn't that all a bit dated like you?

In any case, I don't take kindly to net nazis like yourself, and don't
waste much time in flame wars either. So get lost!

My, you are a surly one.

You draw the reaction your posts deserve.

I was really mean to explain some of the
facts of life to you. Do you really think I keep a list of silly
html posters who have been told the facts and responded with ugly
noises? You might consider that the cause of the message was the
appearance of the silly html, not your identity. After that you
might ponder on who placed that html on usenet in the first place.

If you weren't being a childish net-nazi, you wouldn't have to worry about any
of that.

However, if you have been doing this since the mid 90s, you do
appear to be fairly slow on the uptake.

You might someday wake up to the fact that it's sop to place 'OT" or similar
in the subject header when you post something that has nothing whatsoever to
do with the subject at hand? Then again, you've had long enough to learn, but
your rudeness seems to prevail..

"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

How about the Usenet rule limiting sigs to 3 lines. Guess you're too good for
those rules also eh? and how about pmfji? I didn't see that either. You
obviously need to get a life badly. :-(

Bob