machine check errors

Product: Windows Operating System
Event ID: 106
Source: WMIxWDM
Version: 5.2
Symbolic Name: MCA_WARNING_UNKNOWN_NO_CPU
Message: Machine Check Event reported is a corrected error.

Explanation
A hardware error was resolved by your system. The type of error cannot
be determined because the error record returned by the firmware is not
in the required format. For detailed information about the hardware that
caused the problem, refer to the event log.


Required format? What firmware is not in what required format? Event log
? I copied this info from the event log.



Details
Product: Windows Operating System
Event ID: 26
Source: Application Popup
Version: 5.2
Symbolic Name: STATUS_LOG_HARD_ERROR
Message: Application popup: %1 : %2

Explanation
The program could not load a driver because the program user doesn't
have sufficient privileges to access the driver or because the drive is
missing or corrupt.

Privileges? I am the one who runs the computer. I am the one who
installed windows. I am the only one who uses the computer. I only have
one Windows account on this computer and I log into it every time
Windows boots up. That would be the admin account... no ?


Anyone care to iterate on this?

Colin
Tue Dec 19 19:59:38 CST 2006

I think it is saying that the record was not in the required format to be
interpreted, not that the firmware is not in the right format for something.

"RR" <yourspam@blocked.com> wrote in message
news:SoGdnSGnfO3PCBXYnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com...
> Product: Windows Operating System
> Event ID: 106
> Source: WMIxWDM
> Version: 5.2
> Symbolic Name: MCA_WARNING_UNKNOWN_NO_CPU
> Message: Machine Check Event reported is a corrected error.
>
> Explanation
> A hardware error was resolved by your system. The type of error cannot be
> determined because the error record returned by the firmware is not in the
> required format. For detailed information about the hardware that caused
> the problem, refer to the event log.
>
>
> Required format? What firmware is not in what required format? Event log
> ? I copied this info from the event log.
>
>
>
> Details
> Product: Windows Operating System
> Event ID: 26
> Source: Application Popup
> Version: 5.2
> Symbolic Name: STATUS_LOG_HARD_ERROR
> Message: Application popup: %1 : %2
>
> Explanation
> The program could not load a driver because the program user doesn't have
> sufficient privileges to access the driver or because the drive is missing
> or corrupt.
>
> Privileges? I am the one who runs the computer. I am the one who installed
> windows. I am the only one who uses the computer. I only have one Windows
> account on this computer and I log into it every time Windows boots up.
> That would be the admin account... no ?
>
>
> Anyone care to iterate on this?

RR
Tue Dec 19 20:52:38 CST 2006

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> I think it is saying that the record was not in the required format to
> be interpreted, not that the firmware is not in the right format for
> something.
>


so the error record is .... the event log? or...


anyway, I have done some more searching on the internet and from what I
have found, it looks like it could be memmory but leaning more towards
my CPU and or my BIOS/firmware.

Tony
Tue Dec 19 21:31:00 CST 2006

Try and re-seat all expansion cards and your memory, and all signal and
power cables as well!


Tony. . .


"RR" <yourspam@blocked.com> wrote in message
news:Jq-dnatFndvrOBXYnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> > I think it is saying that the record was not in the required format to
> > be interpreted, not that the firmware is not in the right format for
> > something.
> >
>
>
> so the error record is .... the event log? or...
>
>
> anyway, I have done some more searching on the internet and from what I
> have found, it looks like it could be memmory but leaning more towards
> my CPU and or my BIOS/firmware.

RR
Tue Dec 19 23:06:25 CST 2006

Tony Sperling wrote:
> Try and re-seat all expansion cards and your memory, and all signal and
> power cables as well!


that might be worth a try.


I just updated the BIOS but as to my surprize that didn't help.

Charlie
Tue Dec 19 23:55:50 CST 2006

If you haven't had problems before this, then it's very unlikely to be the
BIOS. Look at what is new, what driver has been updated, and try removing
those first. Failing that, look at memory. RAM can be a subtle problem that
doesn't always show up the same in x64 as it does in x86. For more on
possible testers and solutions, see my blog:
http://msmvps.com/xperts64/archive/2005/09/01/64999.aspx

Finally, it's highly unlikely to be the CPU, unless you haven't been
properly cooling it.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


"RR" <yourspam@blocked.com> wrote in message
news:G5SdnVK_8fxMWRXYnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tony Sperling wrote:
>> Try and re-seat all expansion cards and your memory, and all signal and
>> power cables as well!
>
>
> that might be worth a try.
>
>
> I just updated the BIOS but as to my surprize that didn't help.

Benjamin
Thu Dec 21 06:05:33 CST 2006

* Charlie Russel - MVP:

> If you haven't had problems before this, then it's very unlikely to be
> the BIOS. Look at what is new, what driver has been updated, and try
> removing those first. Failing that, look at memory. RAM can be a subtle
> problem that doesn't always show up the same in x64 as it does in x86.
> For more on possible testers and solutions, see my blog:
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64/archive/2005/09/01/64999.aspx

Well, you have to be _very_ careful with software RAM testers. Just
because they don't find any error doesn't mean the memory is ok or that
the problem is not memory-related.

Benjamin

Charlie
Thu Dec 21 10:46:08 CST 2006

Well, so far they've been pretty good at spotting things as we've done
troubleshooting here on this NG. Hence the original blog post which is now
over a year old - we had already found quite a few system problems with the
suggested utilities, especially memtest86 if I remember the name correctly.

Are software testers perfect? Probably not. But if well designed they should
exercise the RAM sufficiently to spot a problem, especially since they will
exercise it enough to warm things up, a key possible failure point.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:ew%23xQhPJHHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>* Charlie Russel - MVP:
>
>> If you haven't had problems before this, then it's very unlikely to be
>> the BIOS. Look at what is new, what driver has been updated, and try
>> removing those first. Failing that, look at memory. RAM can be a subtle
>> problem that doesn't always show up the same in x64 as it does in x86.
>> For more on possible testers and solutions, see my blog:
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64/archive/2005/09/01/64999.aspx
>
> Well, you have to be _very_ careful with software RAM testers. Just
> because they don't find any error doesn't mean the memory is ok or that
> the problem is not memory-related.
>
> Benjamin

Benjamin
Thu Dec 21 11:51:04 CST 2006

* Charlie Russel - MVP:

> Are software testers perfect? Probably not. But if well designed they
> should exercise the RAM sufficiently to spot a problem,

I didn't say they were not sufficiently. But I think one should be aware
than a "memory ok" from a software RAM tester doesn't mean there's
nothing wrong with the memory.

> especially since
> they will exercise it enough to warm things up, a key possible failure
> point.

The temperature of dynamically refreshed memory is rather independent
from the fact if it is used or not.

Benjamin

Dshai
Thu Dec 21 16:43:40 CST 2006

As a system builder I have to agree with both of you, software testers and
monitors for hardware are not 100% accurate however they are good for their
purpose as long as you keep that fact in sight. Along those same lines I'm a
believer in "burn-in" and benchmark type programs, I can't compete on a
monetary levvel with the "big guys", my strength in business is strictly my
good name, the systems I sell must function well, beyond the expectations of
the customer so to speak. With this in mind my appreciation of the softwares
of which we speak here becomes evident, I use them to stress systems, to
emulate long-term usage in a short period of time, this allows me to find
and replace faulty hardware thereby shipping product that will perform as
expected.

Dshai

"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:usrHViSJHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>* Charlie Russel - MVP:
>
>> Are software testers perfect? Probably not. But if well designed they
>> should exercise the RAM sufficiently to spot a problem,
>
> I didn't say they were not sufficiently. But I think one should be aware
> than a "memory ok" from a software RAM tester doesn't mean there's nothing
> wrong with the memory.
>
>> especially since they will exercise it enough to warm things up, a key
>> possible failure point.
>
> The temperature of dynamically refreshed memory is rather independent from
> the fact if it is used or not.
>
> Benjamin

Tony
Fri Dec 22 08:35:06 CST 2006

Memory 'errors' and 'testing', are extremely complex issues it seems. If I
was a cautious man, or smart in any way, I wouldn't say a word about it. But
as my father said, a tone of disgust in his voice, when I was about 12 years
of age "Put a Guillotine in front of the Town Hall and sit down and wait to
see who'll be the first to put his head in!" That was a reference to me.

The real problem, I suspect, comes from the fact that memory in the PC is
not adressable bit-to-bit - it is 'byte adressable'. This has to mean that
you cannot just test each cell within the adressable range - you have to
test each combination of adressable bytes as well. In addition, the testing
software should re-boot and load itself into different parts of memory in
such a fashion that it's own memory footprint is not excluded from this
combination of all the bytes in the adressable range. As there is, at least,
some sort of conscious process observing the result, we should perhaps
consider the possibility that the testers location in memory, from a Quantum
Physics perspective, could inflict on the outcome - I don't think there is
anything in the commercial market that is taking this into regard - my math
is rusty, but it may even be an impossible task - or would take so long as
to make the hardware obsoleted by the time it could present us with a
(result?). The POST memory count is not testing memory at all, but the
question remains if it really isn't almost as valuable to the average user?
At least it was able to determine the presence of that count of memory.

This is one of these precious cases where everyone is right and wrong all at
the same time - people respond in different ways - experience tells some
that any sign of weakness is better handled as an error and to throw the
part away. The experience of other's tells them to invest in smarter
testers, while experience is telling me that it could be worthwhile having
parts being put to work in combination with other parts (failing, or not) -
that testing is better (from the economy of running a Home - not a Business
machine!) made while running in it's working environment. Just because some
part is failing in one machine or socket, doesn't mean that it wouldn't run
perfectly in another.

And one really important point is to not treat random errors in the memory
the same as Boot-Time errors, the latter will certainly be a potential
object for the 'socket swap' excercise. Since at least some of the time it
might be hard to determine if the error is most likely to be random or not,
I prefer to try this prescription at all times. This prescription is
developed according to my own personal economy and experience, of course.

No matter what anybody's personal experience is saying, nobody knows when
the next failure will happen anyway, or where.


Very Happy Hollidays, everyone!!!


Tony. . .


"Dshai" <dshai@indy.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OXuK3FVJHHA.3268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> As a system builder I have to agree with both of you, software testers and
> monitors for hardware are not 100% accurate however they are good for
their
> purpose as long as you keep that fact in sight. Along those same lines I'm
a
> believer in "burn-in" and benchmark type programs, I can't compete on a
> monetary levvel with the "big guys", my strength in business is strictly
my
> good name, the systems I sell must function well, beyond the expectations
of
> the customer so to speak. With this in mind my appreciation of the
softwares
> of which we speak here becomes evident, I use them to stress systems, to
> emulate long-term usage in a short period of time, this allows me to find
> and replace faulty hardware thereby shipping product that will perform as
> expected.
>
> Dshai
>
> "Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:usrHViSJHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >* Charlie Russel - MVP:
> >
> >> Are software testers perfect? Probably not. But if well designed they
> >> should exercise the RAM sufficiently to spot a problem,
> >
> > I didn't say they were not sufficiently. But I think one should be aware
> > than a "memory ok" from a software RAM tester doesn't mean there's
nothing
> > wrong with the memory.
> >
> >> especially since they will exercise it enough to warm things up, a key
> >> possible failure point.
> >
> > The temperature of dynamically refreshed memory is rather independent
from
> > the fact if it is used or not.
> >
> > Benjamin
>
>