Has the RAM issue been resolved?

Message

esmithf_ts · #1 Post by **esmithf_ts** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:02 am

My T60p has 1GB of RAM in it and it is simply not cutting it for using Visual Studio on here.

My laptop died shortly after buying it and IBM techs replaced the motherboard on it. With that came a bios revision.

I tried putting the additional 1GB of RAM that I had back in after the motherboard swap, and it still crashed all of the time - so I took it out and have been limping along with 1GB in here.

Has there been any progress as to the crashes and having more RAM in the unit?

I am tempted to switch to an X60 since I know that will let me put 2GB in there no problem and when docked with my monitor and keyboard, it is essentially no different (other than slower processor).

EagleDevil · #2 Post by **EagleDevil** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:51 pm

What brand and type of RAM did you add? I put a Kingston ValueRAM chip in my T60, and it caused serious problems (freezes, BSODs). I have replaced it with a 1GB chip designed for the ThinkPad (also made by Kingston) and everything has been fine. The same thing happened someone else I know with ValueRAM.

I have heard other users say that other brands have given them no problems, but my conclusion is that the T60 is slightly finicky about its RAM. And definitely stay away from ValueRAM.

But I would try a different type of RAM before I gave up on the computer.

Chris

esmithf_ts · #3 Post by **esmithf_ts** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:11 pm

I ordered it from 1800 Memory I believe, or Crucial (I'll have to look through my records to see which).

I put in the model for my laptop and then it spat out some options and I went with their recommended option.

My unit had a 1GB chip in it, but the paperwork for it said that it had two 500MB chips, so I ordered 2x 1GB chips to replace.

When I got it open and saw there was 1GB in there, I just put in one of the chips that I bought. I had crashes, and so I tried all of the combinations possible, and the only way it would not crash was with the original RAM in there.

Later when my wife got an X60, I put the 2GB in there and it is happy as can be.

Do you have a place that you recommend getting the RAM from?

EagleDevil · #4 Post by **EagleDevil** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:31 pm

This is the chip that is working happily in my T60:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820134071

I must say, the price has gone up in the 3 weeks sine I bought mine.

Chris

esmithf_ts · #5 Post by **esmithf_ts** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:35 pm

Thanks! I'll order some of that and hopefully that will work.

I must say, installing RAM into the X60 was almost pleasant - the T60's "under the keyboard cover" RAM location is less than convenient (or perhaps more the issue of how easy it is to get back together improperly).

schmaud · #6 Post by **schmaud** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:38 pm

it is possible that your RAM is bad. You might want to run something as memtest86 to check.
I had such an effect recently on an iMac at work.

regards,

ralf

esmithf_ts · #7 Post by **esmithf_ts** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:48 pm

You mean the RAM that is in my machine currently?

If it is in there (the RAM that came with the unit) by itself, it runs just fine. If I add any RAM, it crashes.

The RAM I added has gone entirely into another machine and it doesn't crash at all.

So that would seem to indicate that the RAM in my machine currently is fine, and the RAM that I tried putting in is also fine, but the combination of this RAM and anything else (so far) in this machine, causes the crashes.

Back in July when I was trying this, there were many threads on this board about this issue - it ranged from "try other RAM" to "you need a new BIOS" as the solution.
The new BIOS didn't help me, so now I am back to needing to try other RAM.

Unless you mean that this RAM that is in here is bad in that it doesn't play well with others.
If that were the case, it would seem that putting in the two other 1GB chips that I had and taking this one out would have solved that - and I tried that - and still no.

Back in July, someone said the issue is that the bigger graphics card (bigger as in RAM, not as in physical size) in the T60p has some conflict on the motherboard with system RAM.
So if any RAM is not playing nice, it would seem it would be that RAM.
Something about when you go over 1GB of RAM sets off the issue.

So at the time, it seemed to be a known issue with no resolution (or no single resolution, but a few things that people had some luck with) and I am interested in seeing where it is these days.

If this NewEgg RAM doesn't work out, then I will be getting rid of this laptop and going to some other solution, because as it is now, 1GB of RAM is nowhere near enough.

wallybear · #8 Post by **wallybear** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:55 pm

...and here's why.

It works. Guaranteed or they'll take it back. But, it always works.

And, if you use the correct RAM your ThinkPad should work fine. The fact that you say "If I add any RAM, it crashes" means that the RAM you've added isn't compatible with the RAM that shipped with it (assuming you added one SODIMM) or that it isn't compatible with the machine (assuming you added two SODIMMs). I suppose there is a possibility that your T60 is flawed in some way and won't accept anything but the original SODIMM, but the only way to prove that to Lenovo is to document the fact that you've tried RAM from a competitor that guarantees their RAM to work.

Also, in case you don't know, the RAM specs are:

SODIMM, DDR2 PC2-5300, CL=5, Unbuffered, Non-ECC, DDR2-667, 1.8v. Two 1GB modules will cost about $190 right now.

By the way, be sure to use the "Crucial Memory Advisor" tool to get the special part number assigned to your purchase that identifies the fact that you've let Crucial "pick" the SODIMM that is guaranteed to work in your model of ThinkPad. (That is, if you search for what you think is the right SODIMM yourself, then buy it and it doesn't work, they don't have to take it back. But they will after you explain the mistake you made and start over, losing time and some money in the process.)

Sadly, RAM prices went way up (about 40%) in the past month. Of course, as it is a commodity, it will also go down just as fast.

I hope this posting helps you. I'm just advising Crucial because they've always worked for me and their RAM works fine in my T60. I've ended up returning RAM on two occasions to Newegg (the Kingston brand, a good brand usually) that didn't work in laptops I was upgrading for clients of mine who wanted to save a few bucks over Crucial's price at the time. Now I only will install RAM I've ordered from Crucial as my time is valuable to me and my customers (that is, they have to pay me for my time in coming back to install RAM again).

Good luck. Please post the outcome of your journey.

EagleDevil · #9 Post by **EagleDevil** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:25 pm

Forgot to say: Lenovo has approved part numbers (FRUs) for memory. I don't know if Crucial akes approved RAM.

I matched the ValueRAM specs, and never got a satisfactory answer about why it didn't work.

I would check with Lenovo if you want to be positive about another brand.

Chris

claudeo · #10 Post by **claudeo** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:11 am

I went to 1.5GB with a 1GB Patriot purchased from NewEgg after seeing referenced here in another thread, to supplement my factory 512MB. No problem whatsoever (other than the usual Microsoft memory management issues with odd-sized RAM).
The problem may turn out to be in the RAM that Lenovo shipped in your system, that somehow does not play nice with additional RAM. Testing it out by getting a couple of 1GB sticks would probably be cheaper than getting a new computer. Even if that does not work out, it may still be worth the try. But if you see a report that a particular brand or model doesn't work, don't waste time and money.

EagleDevil · #11 Post by **EagleDevil** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:17 am

claudeo wrote:No problem whatsoever (other than the usual Microsoft memory management issues with odd-sized RAM).

Could you be more specific? I'm curious because I'm running 1.5 GB in my T60, and I have read than there is no problem with that arrangement, that it can run as dual-channel, etc...

What issues do you mean?

Chris

claudeo · #12 Post by **claudeo** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:04 am

Can you be more specific?...

There is a problem with Windows memory management in that a lot of applications simply quit working correctly when memory gets scare -- something reminiscent of handle starving or resource starving in Win98. For example, links in Internet Explorer or in Outlook no longer work. Or copy and paste quit working. Or you can't format a cell in Excel, that kind of stuff. Sometimes you get an error message, often you don't. This can be nasty because it may lead to losing work if saving the work requires allocating new resources. So I still use my good old habits from the days of CP/M: Save often, and take nothing for granted. At least XP has the Task Manager that can be used to kill processes until enough resources get freed... I used to run into that a lot with my T42 with 1.5GB and and I see the same pattern with my T60 with 1.5GB. Makes me wonder whether Microsoft does any serious testing with memory sizes that are not a power of 64 (256, 512, 1GB, 2BG...)

whomung · #13 Post by **whomung** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:10 am

esmithf_ts wrote:My T60p has 1GB of RAM in it and it is simply not cutting it for using Visual Studio on here.

My laptop died shortly after buying it and IBM techs replaced the motherboard on it. With that came a bios revision.

I tried putting the additional 1GB of RAM that I had back in after the motherboard swap, and it still crashed all of the time - so I took it out and have been limping along with 1GB in here.

Has there been any progress as to the crashes and having more RAM in the unit?

I am tempted to switch to an X60 since I know that will let me put 2GB in there no problem and when docked with my monitor and keyboard, it is essentially no different (other than slower processor).

Hi..... Running a T60p on a gig is like climbing everest without oxygen... you can do it, but it's not so easy

Because of a failed T43p, Lenovo just gave me a T60p 200794U, with three(3) gigs of RAM in it.... all the RAM is from them, BUT the second two gigs arrived seperately and I installed them... (all RAM is from Lenovo, -- which makes a two gig stick rediculously expensive--... but the two sticks were immediately recognized and seem to be working together....

I can't speak about mixing different mfgrs.... cause I don't know who made either of these sticks

But, so far, no problems.... and today I've been working in AutoCAD..... (haven't tried to render anything), but have been working with big files in 2D, as well as working in Photoshop....

Everything OK

I ran initial PC-Doctor to test the memory, and it said things were cool.......

I've got bios v.109.a,

like I said, both sticks came from lenovo....I don't know who made Either stick.... but no probs yet.....

I don't know if this is a help or not.... main thing is... the second two gigs of memory were installed about three weeks after I got new machine.... so while I don't know the manufacturer.... the sticks certainly weren't sequential

esmithf_ts · #14 Post by **esmithf_ts** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:28 pm

Well, I ordered 2x 1GB from that NewEgg link someone posted and I hate to jinx myself by stating that it is good to go - but I have put it through some stress tests that it didn't survive before with the last batch of RAM I tried.
So for now, I'm rating it good to go.

I took out the RAM that was in there and just replaced with with the two separate 1GB chips. I had done this before and had issues, and now it appears to work.

One thing that I noticed is that now when I go to My Computer and right click and then go to Properties, I see that has the 2GB of RAM and it has the PAE (Physical Address Extension).
I don't recall seeing this the last time I tried to put in more RAM, so perhaps that is part of the issue.

Regardless of whatever it was doing before, it appears to work now, and that is all I care about for now.

It still churns the HD pretty hard at startup, and so I had it look at defragging it - but it seems content with the level of defrag that is there now, so I guess that isn't it.

I will be sure to post here again if it does crash in a way that seems to indicate this new RAM - but so far, all is good.

Thanks for the help all - especially the specific link to NewEgg.

wallybear · #15 Post by **wallybear** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:15 am

Glad to hear you got your T60 working with 2GB of RAM.

Just a footnote, for what it's worth to you....

Because your latest configuration (2 identical SODIMMs from the same manufacturer) apparently works this means your problem was in the "matching" of your original SODIMM that shipped with your machine and the one(s) that you tried with it.

In other words, for whatever reason, the original SODIMM wasn't the same timing (etc.) as the ones you tried to use with it. Therefore, your machine balked with the added RAM. Now that you have (apparently) "followed the rules" of having compatible modules, your machine is happy.

Whether you buy your RAM from Newegg or Crucial (or whomever) the issue is the same: two modules have to be identical (in certain ways...not necessarily brand) in order to work with the memory controller on the chipset (motherboard).

While this can seem like voodoo, or a mystery, it actually is pure science. That's why the manufacturer's recommendation is always to use identical modules from one manufacturer. Doing so means that the liklihood of correct matching will be high. In the case where two identical modules fail to work together, the cause is most certainly a defect in manufacturing. That's why buying RAM from a retailer/manufacturer that will guarantee it is important.

Generic RAM is generally (relatively) cheap for a reason.

esmithf_ts · #16 Post by **esmithf_ts** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:37 pm

wallybear, that sounds great and all - except when I bought the RAM previously, the 2 chips that didn't work - they didn't work with the existing RAM nor each other - it just didn't work in any configuration and they were identical back then - but they were a different brand than the stuff I have now (then it was Samsung - not cheap, it was actually the most expensive since I wanted to avoid issues, which is the same as the stuff that was in my IBM from the factory) instead of Kingston.
Also, those two chips went into an X60 and it is totally fine without any crashes, it was only an issue in the T60p, so I don't think it was that RAM that was bad since it is clearly fine in the X60.

So while I see your point, I am not entirely convinced that was the case here.

Back when I originally had the problem in July, there were a ton of people on this board that were having the same issue specifically with the T60p that has more video RAM and it was supposedly some known issue in the hardware or bios, hence why I asked the question if it had been resolved.

But really, at this point I really don't care what caused it since it is working now and didn't work then.
It could be that monkeys came in at night and painted the motherboard with magic fairy dust and as long as this thing doesn't crash, I'll agree with the idea.

So if matching RAM is the solution - I'll just ignore that I did exactly that before since it is working this go.

EagleDevil · #17 Post by **EagleDevil** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:35 pm

claudeo wrote:
Can you be more specific?...
There is a problem with Windows memory management in that a lot of applications simply quit working correctly when memory gets scare -- something reminiscent of handle starving or resource starving in Win98. For example, links in Internet Explorer or in Outlook no longer work. Or copy and paste quit working. Or you can't format a cell in Excel, that kind of stuff. Sometimes you get an error message, often you don't. This can be nasty because it may lead to losing work if saving the work requires allocating new resources. So I still use my good old habits from the days of CP/M: Save often, and take nothing for granted. At least XP has the Task Manager that can be used to kill processes until enough resources get freed... I used to run into that a lot with my T42 with 1.5GB and and I see the same pattern with my T60 with 1.5GB. Makes me wonder whether Microsoft does any serious testing with memory sizes that are not a power of 64 (256, 512, 1GB, 2BG...)

Hmmm... never seen that sort of problem, but maybe you use your machine harder than I do. Like the last poster, I guess I don't care what makes it work or not work... just so it works.

Chris

#18 Post by **BillMorrow** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:51 pm

the T60 is just very critical of less-than-perfect memory..
in my experience matching or non matching parts makes no difference..

only get god branded memory and you should have no problem..

i don't understand WHY this particular T60 problem is not well known..

are you saying that ibm/lenovo replaced the system board of your T60 because of BSOD's caused be the memory..?

they really should know this by now..

esmithf_ts · #19 Post by **esmithf_ts** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:17 am

The motherboard replacement was another issue, as far as I know unrelated to the RAM.

I bought the laptop with 1GB of RAM in it.
I bought 2x 1GB chips later to upgrade it. When they were in, it was usable, but unstable - I tried all of the different configurations of the existing chip and the new ones, or new ones only, etc - anything that put it over 1GB would cause it to be unstable.

Then during a late night working towards a deadline, it crashed and never came back. I couldn't boot to the IBM recovery screen, I couldn't boot to the Windows CD, I couldn't even boot from a Linux CD - so it clearly was not the HD and it was a motherboard issue.
I took the HD out and backed it up and then had IBM replace the motherboard.

When it came back, I tried the RAM again and it wasn't even that it was unstable, it was just unusable for more than 3 seconds (previously I might get 30 mins to 3 hours out of it before a crash).

Now with the RAM that is in there from that NewEgg link, it appears to be just fine.

On an unrelated note, after my unit came back with a new motherboard (and with that, new bios version), it had obviously wiped all of my fingerprint security settings.
I have since been too paranoid to set them up again, since it is wokring now I don't want to change anything that will break it again.
What is funny is that I am a tech consultant, so when I see other people doing things like that, it amuses me - but now I see myself doing it. The ThinkPad is one of the few things that has me a bit baffled - but then, I'm more of a software guy

khaverblad · #20 Post by **khaverblad** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:45 am

Well, I read this thread with some kind of fear since I ordered a T60 (2007-FRG) that comes with 1GB memory and had together with that order added 1GB Kingston Value Ram. So it was with some hesitation that I installed the extra 1GB to see if it would work or not - but it did. No problem at all; when ordering I checked the specs for the so called original memory Lenovo suggested and picked Kingston Value Ram with following specs:

SO-DIMM 1GB DDR2 PC2-5300/667 MHz, KVR
Batch_ID: 100046 ID Date: 2006-10-10

The original Kinston pn is:

KVR667D2S5/1G

So far after a couple of days the system has worked fine and as well together with SiSoft Sandra memoey test to stress the entire system and memory tests.

EagleDevil · #21 Post by **EagleDevil** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Kim,

I hope that RAM does work for you. For me, the problems did not show up clearly until I had had the RAM in for a couple of weeks.

Chris

khaverblad · #22 Post by **khaverblad** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:00 pm

Chris, just curious, but did the problem start out of nowhere after couple of weeks or did the system act wierd from the start and more and more?

EagleDevil · #23 Post by **EagleDevil** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:51 pm

I had random freezes that culminated in a BSOD. At first I couldn't figure out what it was, but Kingston said Value RAM is not made for ThinkPads, and I've had no such problems since I switched RAM.

It could be I just had a bad stick, but another person on notebookreviews.com had similar problems with ValueRAM.

Chris

khaverblad · #24 Post by **khaverblad** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:36 am

Huh! Really odd since when ordering the T60 together with recommended hardware to add the Kingston was among suggested upgrades. I've been installing software now for one day and are up to speed again working with the system and I haven't had a single freeze or any wierd experience. But, if something starts I know at least where to look

#25 Post by **archer6** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:45 pm

EagleDevil wrote:
claudeo wrote:Could you be more specific? I'm curious because I'm running 1.5 GB in my T60, and I have read than there is no problem with that arrangement, that it can run as dual-channel, etc...

When one is choosing to upgrade memory in a T60 there are just a few important considerations.

1) It's critical that you choose ram that is of the exact same specifications. ex: PC2-5300 / 667 MHz / CL5 / dual channel capable

2) The T60 will provide dual channel _only_ with 2 memory sticks of the _same speed_.

If for example you choose to run 1.5 gig total, then your ThinkPad will be running in the single channel mode. In addition it will not provide 1.5 GB speed, it will only run as though it has about 1.1 - 1.2 GB ram total.

So to optimize your investment you are much better off, either choosing 2x 512MB for 1GB in dual channel mode. Or 2x 1GB for 2GB running in dual channel mode.

Regarding brands, you may use two sticks of _different brands_, but the must be the _same_ specs.

Finally I will note that the T60 is indeed somewhat picky in that it runs best with top quality ram. So in order to save time, and avoid problems and only have to to the upgrade once, choose a good brand of ram.

khaverblad · #26 Post by **khaverblad** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:13 pm

When talking about brand of memory, in my system Lenovo have used Samsung memory and if I would get memory for my system I would either pick Kingston or Viking memory and not Samsung.

thinkweird · #27 Post by **thinkweird** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:32 pm

archer6 wrote:
EagleDevil wrote: When one is choosing to upgrade memory in a T60 there are just a few important considerations.

2) The T60 will provide dual channel _only_ with 2 memory sticks of the _same speed_.

If for example you choose to run 1.5 gig total, then your ThinkPad will be running in the single channel mode. In addition it will not provide 1.5 GB speed, it will only run as though it has about 1.1 - 1.2 GB ram total.

I heard that 945 chipset can run dual channel even though the _capacity_ of the memories are not the same.

Just want to confirm that if other specifications are the same, 1GB+512MB should be able to run on dual channel. Is it true?

Scratch · #28 Post by **Scratch** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:55 pm

BillMorrow wrote:the T60 is just very critical of less-than-perfect memory..
in my experience matching or non matching parts makes no difference..

only get god branded memory and you should have no problem..

That's a tall order Bill, but if you have a direct connection to the BIG GUY I can think of better uses than memory branding.

khaverblad · #29 Post by **khaverblad** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:29 pm

Just a quick update regarding using Kingston SO-DIMM 1GB DDR2 PC2-5300/667 MHz, KVR Batch_ID: 100046 ID Date: 2006-10-10 - KVR667D2S5/1G and I have not had any issues problem at all. I'm mentioning this since couple of threads said to avoid Kingston memories. Then again, above specs, are the same as Lenovo recomends.

Has the RAM issue been resolved?

Has the RAM issue been resolved?

I recommend Crucial memory....

Re: Has the RAM issue been resolved?

Your experience has proved the problem...

Who is online