<petermcmillan_uk@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:667f87d5-140a-4cc6-af61-286a10fc40c9@xxxxxx
Quote:
Quote:
> >
> > If your system is stable with the RAM underclocked, then the RAM must be
> > bad...
> > but of course, at this point it's hard to tell- Hide quoted text -
> >
>
> I'm on my Vista machine now and it seems to be working 
. I set the
> DDR to 667MHz rather than auto. It looks like the memory doesn't work
> at its rated spec (800MHz). It's really annoying because I paid quite
> a bit extra for 800Mhz, and even more for Corsair. It's not really
> worth the hassle and cost of getting a replacement. So I'll probably
> just stick with it at 667MHz 
>
> I'm hoping that it won't suddenly die completely. The motherboard
> temperature monitor seems to be useless though. At the moment the CPU
> is at 12C, but the room must be at least 18C. It's a pretty rubbish
> computer really. I'm already starting to hate Vista too. I'll
> probably end up using my faster Windows XP machine, which is less than
> half as powerful. Too bad the RAM does not work at it's rating...
but glad you at least got the system up and running.
Though I am still evaluating Vista here...
not of my hardware is really good enough,
so I mostly use Win2k, XP and Linux .
I'd think that once you get your system fine-tuned, it should run Vista
pretty well though