HELP! I think I killed my lap top

Gizmos_dad

I have an Acer Travelmate laptop, 4060 model I think. It had 256mb memory and it was running very slow and getting slower each day. So I had a bright idea and decided to install more RAM. So bought some more RAM, 2x 512mb. I installed these and tried to boot up. It tried to boot, make the usual funny noise of hard drive stirring to life and also the green light comes illuminates on the keyboard. However it just stops there. Nothing more, the screen is blank, the green light stays on and it won't switch off either. I have tried everything since then, install old RAM stick, try only one stick. Nothing is happening. Same thing happens everytime. Have I knackered the motherboard??:mad:

Any ideas most welcome.

GD

Donnie

What memory did you buy?

Gizmos_dad

Corsair 512mb stick, I think as I don't have them at hand to check. It was ddr.

Donnie

Gizmos_dad wrote: »

Corsair 512mb stick, I think as I don't have them at hand to check. It was ddr.

Full specification please. This is science, not directions to the shop around the corner. If you don't have to them to hand, you will know where you ordered etc.

rdpro

recommended memory for this model is:

DDR2 PC2-5300 • CL=5 • Unbuffered • NON-ECC • DDR2-667 • 1.8V, up to 2x 1Gb (that's from crucial.com/uk)

Try removing all power, including the battery, for 15min. and try again. The power off button will only work if held down for 6 seconds btw. A lot of computers are funny about running newer memory (your original memory was probably DDR2-PC4200 or lower, which isn't made anymore, but 5300 should be backward-compatible).

Also, make sure you put the old memory (firmly-seated) back into it's original slot - I've found numerous laptops throw a wobbler if you switch the memory around.

Also, try booting the laptop with *no* memory - if it beeps madly at you, the motherboard is probably ok (check the connectors on the memory and motherboard for damage, it'll look like scorch marks)

I would've suggested updating the BIOS, but until you can boot the notebook this can't be done.

Donnie

rdpro wrote: »

recommended memory for this model is:

DDR2 PC2-5300 • CL=5 • Unbuffered • NON-ECC • DDR2-667 • 1.8V, up to 2x 1Gb (that's from crucial.com/uk)

Try removing all power, including the battery, for 15min. and try again. The power off button will only work if held down for 6 seconds btw. A lot of computers are funny about running newer memory (your original memory was probably DDR2-PC4200 or lower, which isn't made anymore, but 5300 should be backward-compatible).

Also, make sure you put the old memory (firmly-seated) back into it's original slot - I've found numerous laptops throw a wobbler if you switch the memory around.

Also, try booting the laptop with *no* memory - if it beeps madly at you, the motherboard is probably ok (check the connectors on the memory and motherboard for damage, it'll look like scorch marks)

I would've suggested updating the BIOS, but until you can boot the notebook this can't be done.

I just don't take the Crucial Tool seriously: ACER TravelMate 4060 The machine utilises PC 4200/PC 4300. The memory recommended by Crucial is likely to perform worse than the expected modules, as the CAS Latency is higher.
Crucial just sells you what is has in stock.

KillerWatt

Donnie wrote: »

I just don't take the Crucial Tool seriously: ACER TravelMate 4060 The machine utilises PC 4200/PC 4300. The memory recommended by Crucial is likely to perform worse than the expected modules, as the CAS Latency is higher.
Crucial just sells you what is has in stock.

Aside from the fact that there is a little more to memory speed/timing/performance than just the CAS latency, the link you provided gives no figures at all (other than the bus frequency) where memory speed/timing/performance is concerned so how can you conclude that it will not perform as well as the manufacturer supplied memory?

Donnie

KillerWatt wrote: »

Aside from the fact that there is a little more to memory speed/timing/performance than just the CAS latency, the link you provided gives no figures at all (other than the bus frequency) where memory speed/timing/performance is concerned so how can you conclude that it will not perform as well as the manufacturer supplied memory?

I'm going on the parameters of the Motherboard and the CAS Latency of the RAM modules described in this thread..
If you have some information pertaining to this particular combination(and not some random hypothesis) please share.

Apart from that, if you accept that some Motherboards can reject RAM higher than officially supported, can you think of a reason why you should take the risk in this case?

KillerWatt

Donnie wrote: »

I'm going on the parameters of the Motherboard and the CAS Latency of the RAM modules described in this thread..

The Acer site doesn't give the memory timings, it only gives the system bus speed so I don't see how you came to the conclusion it will run slower.

Donnie wrote: »

Apart from that, if you accept that some Motherboards can reject RAM higher than officially supported, can you think of a reason why you should take the risk in this case?

The only difference I see is that the memory supplied by Crucial can run at a higher bus speed than what the laptop can, but that won't stop the memory from running at the bus speed dictated by the laptop.

Providing the memory is the same configuration (eg, 32Mx64, 64Mx64, buffered, unbuffered, ECC, Non ECC, etc) there is no reason for it not to work.

Donnie

KillerWatt wrote: »

The Acer site doesn't give the memory timings, it only gives the system bus speed so I don't see how you came to the conclusion it will run slower.


The only difference I see is that the memory supplied by Crucial can run at a higher bus speed than what the laptop can, but that won't stop the memory from running at the bus speed dictated by the laptop.

Providing the memory is the same configuration (eg, 32Mx64, 64Mx64, buffered, unbuffered, ECC, Non ECC, etc) there is no reason for it not to work.

What on earth.....??

As I wrote, the deciding factor, given the parameters that we know, is that the RATED RAM at CL4 will perform better than the Crucial recommendation rated at CL5 whilst using that laptop.

No one wrote that the Crucial memory would not work. You wrote that it might not. But why would you take the chance when the Crucial recommendation would perform more poorly on paper, than the rated RAM?

All you have done is to write a lot more words, whilst not proving your case at all. So why the initial need for dissent when you have no argument?

KillerWatt

Donnie wrote: »

What on earth.....??

As I wrote, the deciding factor, given the parameters that we know, is that the RATED RAM at CL4 will perform better than the Crucial recommendation rated at CL5 whilst using that laptop.

No one wrote that the Crucial memory would not work. You wrote that it might not. But why would you take the chance when the Crucial recommendation would perform more poorly on paper, than the rated RAM?

All you have done is to write a lot more words, whilst not proving your case at all. So why the initial need for dissent when you have no argument?

Where did you get a CAS latency figure (which isn't even the first chapter where memory performance is concerned) of 4 from for the particular machine in question?