Re: Memory could not be "read"/"written"
- From: Mary <Mary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 12:44:02 -0700
Hi... I know the other respondees were trying to be helpful but as you
pointed out in one of your posts, this problem seems to be affecting quite a
few people... and there are a few recent posts which is very suspect. I have
had my PC for a few years now and upgraded to the SP2 software ages ago and
not had this problem before. At first I ignored it but today it really
annoyed me so I had a search round the Knowledge Base and then the forum,
where I found your post amongst others. In my case I can't understand what
would have triggered this problem as I am using my PC in the way I always
have and have not installed any new software (that I'm aware of!), so it's a
bit of a mystery. Until I saw all the posts here I did wonder if it was a
virus of some sort but I run AVG software daily and that's not picked
anything up. Do Microsoft actually read through these posts do you think?
Not sure how to go about bringing it to their attention. Although I did come
across Article 899811 in the Knowledge Base... you might want to check it out
if you haven't already... I wonder whether this 'Hotfix' of theirs applies
regardless of the address returned in the error message, in which case maybe
that's the way to go. Let me know what you think if you do have a read of it.
Mary
"Chas" wrote:
Thanks for your supportive response. Ron Martell's reply was informative but.
did not produce a solution. Vincent Isabelle's suggestion eliminated a
possible source of the problem - a bit like "Did you make sure your power was
plugged in?" I can search with a bit more confidence now that I know my
memory doesn't have any errors. At least I know now that I don't have to
purchase "expensive" RAM from Mr. Urban's crucial.com site. However, I still
don't know how to solve the problem. Did your problem begin after the SP2
update or is that simply a coincidence in my case?
Chas
"Mary" wrote:
I have also started getting this error over the last couple of days. Mine
reads...
The instruction at "0x01a0cd11" referenced memory at "0x01a0cd11". The
memory could not be "read".
I can understand your frustration at the inane replies you appear to have
received so far. Have you managed to find a fix for it yet? Let me know if
you do. Or if anyone out there actually knows how to fix this problem,
rather than just coming up with inane red herring ideas...
Mary
"Chas" wrote:
I bought the IBM (at the time) "state of the art" T23 laptop with the full
deck of IBM RAM memory, designed, I assume, by IBM and "certified to work for
the T23" computer and guaranteed for three years (and by no means, cheap).
As I stated in my initial posting, I had no problems until after I updated my
WINXPPro to WinXP SP2. Since I wasn't interested in how cheaply I could get
my product, I went for the "best and most dependable" equipment I could find.
I'm sure I got what I paid for. Now that I have encountered a problem, I'd
like to solve the problem, not defend my past choices that brought me to this
point. By the way, after running memtest86 through 4 cycles, my Ram is
apparently "error free" since all the tests registered without errors each
time. Obviously, now, "error free Ram" is not my problem.
Any helpful suggestions would be appreciated.
Chas
"Richard Urban" wrote:
Replace the RAM with RAM that is "certified" to work with your system, or
your money back.
Many RAM manufacturers have this guarantee, as long as you buy the RAM
indicated as being "of choice" compatible when running the RAM configurator
on their web page.
Yes, this type of RAM is more expensive (sometimes much more expensive) and
many people want to go cheap. They get what they pay for.
WWW.crucial.com
--
Regards,
Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
"Chas" <Chas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1664875D-11D3-4C65-B422-002B65D573D7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Richard Urban" wrote:
Chas
"Chas" <Chas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6EAD2341-44A0-4B85-B25B-C58B23F3B280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The instruction at "0x01cddd51" referenced memory
at "0x01cddd51". The memory could not be "read"
This note appears frequently, and always at the most inopportune time
(generally when I'm switching from one program to the other and just
before I
have saved my work). The system always freezes or reloads, apparently
depending on whether it was "reading" or "writing". From the volume of
requests for assistance on this problem, (some dating from 2004) it
would
seem that MS would take a reply and solution with some degree of
seriousness.
Error free RAM will take the seriousness out of your problem! It has
nothing
to do with Microsoft.
--
Regards,
Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
Oviously I don't know as much as you thought I knew. I have no idea how
to achieve "error free RAM." I'd love to take the seriousness out of my
problem. If it has nothing to do with Microsoft, I would think they
would jump all over the chance to help solve a problem that everyone
seems to think is an OS problem (refer to the high number of requests for
assistance on this problem.) Please, th4e steps to the solution. Thanks!
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Memory could not be "read"/"written"
- From: Chas
- Re: Memory could not be "read"/"written"
- References:
- Re: Memory could not be "read"/"written"
- From: Richard Urban
- Re: Memory could not be "read"/"written"
- From: Richard Urban
- Re: Memory could not be "read"/"written"
- From: Chas
- Re: Memory could not be "read"/"written"
- From: Mary
- Re: Memory could not be "read"/"written"
- From: Chas
- Re: Memory could not be "read"/"written"
- Prev by Date: Re: Unknown Partition.
- Next by Date: Re: Unknown Partition.
- Previous by thread: Re: Memory could not be "read"/"written"
- Next by thread: Re: Memory could not be "read"/"written"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
