The Basics Of RAM

Segfault 11 writes: "Ars Technica has Part 1 of their RAM series, which discusses the way that static and dynamic RAM work, in addition to covering memory modules. To get started, click here to learn more."

Comments

Re:Computers are for everybody

[FFFish]

Everyone and their dog is going to say that you know lots about your car.

What they're ignoring is the validity in what you say. Instead of focusing on your point, which I think was very well made, they're going to nitpick at the illustration you used to carry the concept.

Well, then, let's change the illustration:

I know bugger all about how my microwave works. If it went on the fritz, I wouldn't know the first thing to do. It'd hit the garbage, and I'd buy a new one. There's enough scary things in it that I *don't* want to muck about trying to repair it!

I don't know how my television works. There's a couple of lines into it, and a couple buttons on it, and it works. If anything goes wonky, it's off to the repair shop.

Same goes for the VCR. If it ate a tape, I'd recognize that that's a different sort of problem than a wobbly picture. In both cases, it'd go to a technician.

There a people who see their computer the same way I see a microwave: a scary black box that does magic.

I can't blame them for not wanting to dink around with it. After all, if you let the smoke out, it stops working!


--

Computers are for everybody

[bolan]

I know nothing about how my car works. I am not at all comfortable with upgrading it or maintaining it. The most complicated act I am able to perform is to put gas in it.

But I still use it, and need to use it, every single day. Ignorance about the internals of my car does not preclude me from using it in a valid fashion. Granted, if I were more informed about its workings I would probably be able to use it more efficiently, and more productively. But this gain is not worth the hassel I feel it would be to learn these things.

Computers are no different. They are a tool - nothing more, nothing less. The average person doesn't care how data is actually stored in their computer, or how interrupts work, or anything. They want a machine which is perfectly intuitive and can let them write reports or generate presentations or email their friends, and they do not care how these feats are accomplished.

I admit, today this scenario does not exist in as ideal a fashion as I have laid out. But that doesn't imply it cannot exist. Computers are fundamentally no different than cars - just more complicated. Thus, while it should take more work on our part, a system is able to be designed which fullfills these criteria. It is a challenge to computer scientists to create this system.

Furthermore, the digital computer is so powerful a tool that it should not be withheld from the majority of society for any reason. It has the power to radically alter our entire society, and if that means the loss of comfort for the "computer elite" (which I do not believe it does) than so be it. Why should society be denied such benenfits simply because a few people prefer computers to be special hi-tech playthings? I am happy that the car was not denied society in a similiar fashion.

Philip Quirk

Re:hmm. they don't cover ECC RAM

[Detritus]

It's a false economy, plus at one time, Intel and other vendors were telling people that they didn't need parity or ECC RAM.

ECC RAM is more expensive and it can be hard to find. Many stores don't stock it. In some computers it can be a bit slower than regular RAM.

After having repeatedly dealt with RAM with pattern sensitivity problems, I am a firm believer in ECC RAM. Trying to diagnose and repair a computer that crashes every few days, or only when certain programs are run, can be a major headache. Is the problem the RAM, other hardware, application programs, device drivers or the flakey operating system?

Static RAM got me in the balls.

[BigBlockMopar]

Yes. Static RAM can be highly dangerous.

Especially if you're out in the middle of the woods, on a moonless night, camping with your friends. The campfire has died down, and you've just finished off a six-pack of your favorite beer. You're now heeding nature's call, staggering away from the glowing embers in the firepit...

And then BANG!, the tailgate that you just *knew* you should have closed gets you in the balls. You lie writhing on the ground for a few minutes, then regain some control over yourself as the pain subsides, start to get up and you clock your head on the back bumper, which you didn't realize you were under.

Never turn your back on a static Ram. Or any other pickup truck that you've parked in the woods on a camping trip.

Isn't static RAM dangerous?

[vertical-limit]

I know a question like this is probably old hat (or is that "red hat" :P) to you Linux veterans, but as a long-time BeOS user, I've never quite understood why people insist on using static RAM. Everyone knows that the inside of a computer need to be cool and safe -- remember that incident where Pentium chips kept melting down? Static RAM is dangerous; it can't be relied on to not burn out when it really counts.

(Why is that? Everyone know that static energy is actually a form of electricity. And electricity produces heat when it moves, thus causing the interior of the computer case to heat up. See Jager et. al -- subscription required, sorry.)

You may laugh this off as excessive worrying, but this is a serious problem. I've overclocked a few chips, and they've all died pretty quickly -- and that was without static RAM. High-powered memory zapping around would kill the chip even more quickly. And what if that chip is powering some mission critical application like a space shuttle flight or an air traffic controller?

Just my two cents,
- vl

Ars Technica /box?

[ethereal]

So why hasn't this made it into my Ars Technica slashbox? It seems like the list of articles in that box stays the same for a month, and then all of the sudden there are 5 new ones in a day. Does /. not update the /boxes very often, or is the problem at the Ars end?

Re:memory modules

[Detritus]

Heh!

When we asked for a ROM, they handed you a PC board covered with diodes and a pair of wire cutters.

Bonus geezer points for anyone who knows what a "schmoo chart" is.

At least programmers should

[Trinition]

I think every programmer should at least take a course in assembler, operating systems and computer organization. The sort of insight actually can help a programmer.

You know more than you think

[barzok]

You know your car requires oil and coolant, right? You know that when it won't turn over, you probably have a dead battery. You know that if you leave the lights on, you'll run your battery down. You know that the gas goes from the tank into the engine, mixes with air, gets ignited by a spark, and that's what makes the power, right? And I'm sure you're familiar with what happens when you move/adjust each knob, lever and pedal. There are some very basic troubleshooting processes that you know whether you know it or not.

That's a LOT more than the average computer user knows about their computer. They know that the "E" on their desktop is "the internet" and they know how to turn the system on and off. If you opened the hood of your car, I bet you could easily identify a dozen parts, and yet you claim to know knothing about how your car works. Can the average computer user even ID FOUR parts inside their computer?

I believe that the requirements for obtaining a driver's license (at least in my state) are a bit "easy" - at the very least, require that people demonstrate how to change a tire and handle one or 2 other roadside emergencies. Should all of society be denied access to computers because they aren't geeky enough? No. However, with the proliferation of viruses that prey on user stupidity/error, and the increasing toll these viruses take on the rest of the computing world, and the increasing complexity of, well, everything, I think there does need to be a "curb" for people to get over before they can play in the sandbox.

memory modules

[cthulhubob]

I don't know about this newfangled "modular memory". Back in MY day, we had the DIPs soldered onto the motherboard. And we liked it!

That's the problem with you young whippersnappers today. "Modular" this and "DDR" that. When I was kneehigh to a grasshopper, we didn't even have init! We loaded our kernels into memory by breaking into ROM basic and POKEing our 64K of RAM just the right way. Taught us a real valuable life lesson, it did.

if you cant wait for part 2....

[benshutman]

firingsquad did this article a while ago. pretty informative. http://firingsquad.gamers.com/guides/hiwmemory/def ault.asp