machine check errors

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by RR, Dec 20, 2006.

  1. RR

    RR Guest

    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, Dec 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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 Barnhorst, Dec 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RR

    RR Guest

    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, Dec 20, 2006
    #3
  4. Try and re-seat all expansion cards and your memory, and all signal and
    power cables as well!


    Tony. . .


    "RR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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 Sperling, Dec 20, 2006
    #4
  5. RR

    RR Guest

    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.
     
    RR, Dec 20, 2006
    #5
  6. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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 Russel - MVP, Dec 20, 2006
    #6
  7. * 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 Gawert, Dec 21, 2006
    #7
  8. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:ew%...
    >* 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 Russel - MVP, Dec 21, 2006
    #8
  9. * 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
     
    Benjamin Gawert, Dec 21, 2006
    #9
  10. RR

    Dshai Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >* 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, Dec 21, 2006
    #10
  11. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >* 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 Sperling, Dec 22, 2006
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obg==?=

    Xp machine causes ME machine to get error 'unable to browse networ

    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obg==?=, Nov 30, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    978
    Ryan Younger
    Dec 1, 2005
  2. Jeanne Medley
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,084
    RHODRI REES
    Feb 11, 2004
  3. Vince

    Reception Differences from machine to machine.

    Vince, Sep 1, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    467
  4. =?Utf-8?B?REpheS1a?=

    Machine type other than the current machine?

    =?Utf-8?B?REpheS1a?=, Aug 16, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    11,914
  5. wes40oz

    machine check errors.....

    wes40oz, Nov 9, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    900
    wes40oz
    Nov 10, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page