Icon Confusion

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:u6XQyNi5HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> I'm usually up a bit late - I'm kinda a nite owl. :-)

>

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> What makes you say that? I'm serious. I want a reputable cite that

> explains

>> it all in gory detail. ATX boards are "kept alive" unless you pull the

> plug

>> or turn off the PWS using a switch (which only some have.)

>

> I don't know anything about ATX boards, per se. Maybe ATX boards never

> remove power from the RAM when you turn the computer off, but that sure

> seems unlikely, as there's not much point.

>

>> What about that

>> case? According to your logic, even turning the computer off might not

> flush

>> RAM.

>

> Well, "flush" RAM is not the correct terminology here. Let me explain:

>

> Only by turning the computer off will the entire RAM memory contents (with

> some parts still potentially containing some code or data) effectively

> destroyed.

>

> So when you turn the computer back on again, the contents of all the RAM

> will be random to begin with. That can't happen with a reboot.

>

>> Why do you think it is something to take for granted that a reboot

>> doesn't

>> clear RAM, since it resets everything else?

>

> I think some of this misunderstanding is due to my misuse of the term

> "clear

> RAM" (if i said that term) here, as I explained above.

>

>> What use is the data contained

>> therein? What reason would the designers have for maintaining that data

>> through a reboot?

>

> But rebooting does not wipe out the contents of all the RAM. It's not a

> question of "trying to maintain the data" - you're missing my point.

> It's

> rather that some of it is still left there.

>

>> Why wouldn't the juice be momentarily cut from RAM like it

>> is for nearly everything else. Or does a reboot even do that at all, for

> any

>> component?

>

> AFAIK, rebooting does NOT remove the *power* from all the RAM chips.

> And

> if you don't remove the power from the RAM, some of its data contents will

> still remain, (unless you have some program that deliberately writes data

> into all the cells, which would be a separate utility (like to check out

> the

> RAM).

>

>> Yes I want a cite or three. I want to learn more about it.

>>

>> --

>> Gary S. Terhune

>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>

>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> news:uDkCodh5HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>> Cite? For what? The fact that the only way RAM memory is

> completely

>>> cleared out is to turn off the computer? Surely you jest!

>>>

>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>> Again... Cite? Make it a good one.

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>

>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:u3TLi1f5HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:ee6leLG5HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

>>>>>>> Just to clarify (and to correct my own mistakes in terminology):

>>>>>>> There are three ways to restart a Windows 98 or 95 computer.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 1. Shutdown, and then restart the machine manually.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> That is a cold boot.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 2. Restart or Reboot, which does the same as above except you don't

>>>>>>> have to press any button to restart.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> This one is called a "warm boot" by "Windows 98 Secrets" (Livingston

>>>>>> &

>>>>>> Straub), p.297... "This option works just like Shut Down does, but it

>>>>>> doesn't require that you press Ctrl-Alt-Delete to restart Windows 98.

>>>>>> It

>>>>>> restarts Windows 98 with a warm boot."

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Since this does reach back to BIOS & post, I tend to agree with you

>>>>>> that

>>>>>> it is no different from a cold boot.

>>>>>

>>>>> But you're wrong, because it does NOT remove any resident code or data

>>>>> left

>>>>> in memory that could be problematic (in some instances). So it is

> NOT

>>>>> "identical", per se, by definition.

>>>>>

>>>>> In addition, it is also not identical because the internal hardware

>>>>> (electronics) has not been powered off and then back on again, which

> could

>>>>> have some relevance for both hardware and software (low level) issues,

>>>>> in

>>>>> some instances).

>>>>>

>>>>> That all being said, the practical results are so similar in MOST

>>>>> cases

>>>>> that

>>>>> it probably don't matter too much.

>>>>>

>>>>> Q.E.D.

>

August 24, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

HN,

This happens to me from time to time and I go to Windows

Explorer/View/Folder Options, click on File Types tab, double click on any

of the files listed; Ex: Adobe Acrobat Document, in the Action window will

be Open with Acrobat 6.0(your version may be different), click on OK and

again OK to close out of both windows and your icons should return to

normal. You have changed nothing but reminded the computer of an OK

file/icon association. It is quick and easy without any shutdowns or

restarts.

Don

<HN@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:nnhmc3pr0rv0vpfsvbkaijsr5kibr7v2pc@4ax.com...

> This is Win98se

> For some reason there is some icon confusion going on. For example, I

> have a program called "Hosts Toggle" (to turn on and off the hosts

> file). Right now, all files with the PDF extension have the icon from

> "Hosts Toggle". Text files (.txt) have an icon from another program

> instead of the notepad icon.

>

> The next time I reboot, the icons will be different and some other

> extension will have the wrong icon, for example last night all the

> .jpg files had an icon from another folder on my desktop.

>

> Everything else is working fine. Why is this happeningt and how do I

> fix it?

>

> Thanks

> HN

August 24, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> I don't buy this "data remains in RAM" or "some of the data remains in

RAM"

> or even that it becomes random. Here's the way I look at it, based upon

> observation and deductive logic. RAM is kept alive by electricity. No

> electricity, the ones turn to zeros (or vice versa, but it isn't random.)

Let me get this straight. You think that when you turn the computer back

on, the RAM contents are either all ones or all zeros? No way, Jose!

Go take a peek sometime using debug.

If you take a RAM IC, and power it up (like on a breadboard), the contents

of its memory locations will be pseudorandom, and will NOT be all ones or

all zeroes!

> Since the data in RAM isn't worth a damn after a restart, there's no

reason

> to keep the RAM alive.

It's not really a question of "alive" or "dead" (some misleading terminology

here).

Well, ok, technically, if you want to use the term "dead" here, that would

only apply when power is removed from the RAM chip. We can agree that

then, and then only, is it dead.

> Either that or nothing happens to RAM when the

> electricity is cut, it remains in the last-used state, which means that

even

No, it does NOT remain in the last used state (the contents or data in the

RAM cells, I mean). But that IS true for ROM, obviously!

> if you shut down, the data is retained. It's one or the other.

>

> On an AT board, pushing the reset button momentarily cuts the power supply

> to the entire system (except that part that's kept alive by the CMOS

> battery.) AFAICT, a restart accomplishes the same thing via electronic

> means.

>

> With ATX boards, parts of the system are kept alive, to support things

like

> Wake-On LAN. But only those parts that are necessary to keep alive while

the

> machine is "turned off." RAM isn't one of those components. Resetting or

> restarting does the same thing to all the rest of the components as it

does

> in an AT board -- momentarily cuts power to those components to reset

them.

>

> But maybe I'm totally wrong, I don't know. Again, if you can find a

> reputable resource that describes all these functions in technical detail,

> something that takes you through exactly what happens at every step of a

> startup, shutdown, manual reset and programmatic reset, I'd be very

> interested. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but if so, I want the real story, not

> anecdotal evidence or simplistic articles that don't walk me through the

> processes. I thought I saw a link in this thread to an article that

claimed

> the same thing you do, but I can't find it now. I did take a quick glance

at

> it, but it didn't offer any more explanation than you have, nor did I

> recognize it as an established technical resource.

>

> I'd do it myself, but I have a lot on my plate for the next few weeks.

Maybe

> PCGuide explains it. But I figure since you made the claim, and perhaps

have

> more free time than I do, you'd be willing to find the resources and

settle

> it once and for all (at least for us.) If you don't want to, that's fine,

> but I thought you might be willing. I won't be here for a good ten days,

> anyway, and I'll probably have no access to the NGs, though that isn't

> certain, so there's no hurry, <s>.

>

> (Tired and yawning as I was when I wrote that previous post last night, at

> midnight, half an hour after I lay down I was wide awake, worrying about

all

> the things I have to do this weekend in preparation for a busy trip out of

> town next week. Go figure.)

>

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

>

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:u6XQyNi5HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> I'm usually up a bit late - I'm kinda a nite owl. :-)

>>

>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>> What makes you say that? I'm serious. I want a reputable cite that

explains

>>> it all in gory detail. ATX boards are "kept alive" unless you pull the

plug

>>> or turn off the PWS using a switch (which only some have.)

>>

>> I don't know anything about ATX boards, per se. Maybe ATX boards never

>> remove power from the RAM when you turn the computer off, but that sure

>> seems unlikely, as there's not much point.

>>

>>> What about that

>>> case? According to your logic, even turning the computer off might not

flush

>>> RAM.

>>

>> Well, "flush" RAM is not the correct terminology here. Let me explain:

>>

>> Only by turning the computer off will the entire RAM memory contents

(with

>> some parts still potentially containing some code or data) effectively

>> destroyed.

>>

>> So when you turn the computer back on again, the contents of all the RAM

>> will be random to begin with. That can't happen with a reboot.

>>

>>> Why do you think it is something to take for granted that a reboot

>>> doesn't

>>> clear RAM, since it resets everything else?

>>

>> I think some of this misunderstanding is due to my misuse of the term

>> "clear

>> RAM" (if i said that term) here, as I explained above.

>>

>>> What use is the data contained

>>> therein? What reason would the designers have for maintaining that data

>>> through a reboot?

>>

>> But rebooting does not wipe out the contents of all the RAM. It's not

a

>> question of "trying to maintain the data" - you're missing my point.

>> It's

>> rather that some of it is still left there.

>>

>>> Why wouldn't the juice be momentarily cut from RAM like it

>>> is for nearly everything else. Or does a reboot even do that at all, for

any

>>> component?

>>

>> AFAIK, rebooting does NOT remove the *power* from all the RAM chips.

>> And

>> if you don't remove the power from the RAM, some of its data contents

will

>> still remain, (unless you have some program that deliberately writes data

>> into all the cells, which would be a separate utility (like to check out

>> the

>> RAM).

>>

>>> Yes I want a cite or three. I want to learn more about it.

>>>

>>> --

>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>

>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>> news:uDkCodh5HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>> Cite? For what? The fact that the only way RAM memory is

completely

>>>> cleared out is to turn off the computer? Surely you jest!

>>>>

>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>> Again... Cite? Make it a good one.

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>

>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:u3TLi1f5HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:ee6leLG5HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

>>>>>>>> Just to clarify (and to correct my own mistakes in terminology):

>>>>>>>> There are three ways to restart a Windows 98 or 95 computer.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> 1. Shutdown, and then restart the machine manually.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> That is a cold boot.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> 2. Restart or Reboot, which does the same as above except you don't

>>>>>>>> have to press any button to restart.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> This one is called a "warm boot" by "Windows 98 Secrets" (Livingston

>>>>>>> &

>>>>>>> Straub), p.297... "This option works just like Shut Down does, but

it

>>>>>>> doesn't require that you press Ctrl-Alt-Delete to restart Windows

98.

>>>>>>> It

>>>>>>> restarts Windows 98 with a warm boot."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Since this does reach back to BIOS & post, I tend to agree with you

>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>> it is no different from a cold boot.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> But you're wrong, because it does NOT remove any resident code or

data

>>>>>> left

>>>>>> in memory that could be problematic (in some instances). So it is

NOT

>>>>>> "identical", per se, by definition.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> In addition, it is also not identical because the internal hardware

>>>>>> (electronics) has not been powered off and then back on again, which

>>>>>> could have some relevance for both hardware and software (low level)

>>>>>> issues, in

>>>>>> some instances).

>>>>>>

>>>>>> That all being said, the practical results are so similar in MOST

>>>>>> cases

>>>>>> that

>>>>>> it probably don't matter too much.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Q.E.D.

August 24, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

OK, I don't know. But what makes the data in RAM change from organized to

pseudo-random? Regardless, what I believe is that this behavior isn't

changed by shutting down and then starting, as opposed to resetting.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:uCaQjSo5HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> I don't buy this "data remains in RAM" or "some of the data remains in

> RAM"

>> or even that it becomes random. Here's the way I look at it, based upon

>> observation and deductive logic. RAM is kept alive by electricity. No

>> electricity, the ones turn to zeros (or vice versa, but it isn't random.)

>

> Let me get this straight. You think that when you turn the computer

> back

> on, the RAM contents are either all ones or all zeros? No way, Jose!

> Go take a peek sometime using debug.

>

> If you take a RAM IC, and power it up (like on a breadboard), the contents

> of its memory locations will be pseudorandom, and will NOT be all ones or

> all zeroes!

>

>> Since the data in RAM isn't worth a damn after a restart, there's no

> reason

>> to keep the RAM alive.

>

> It's not really a question of "alive" or "dead" (some misleading

> terminology

> here).

> Well, ok, technically, if you want to use the term "dead" here, that would

> only apply when power is removed from the RAM chip. We can agree that

> then, and then only, is it dead.

>

>> Either that or nothing happens to RAM when the

>> electricity is cut, it remains in the last-used state, which means that

> even

>

> No, it does NOT remain in the last used state (the contents or data in the

> RAM cells, I mean). But that IS true for ROM, obviously!

>

>> if you shut down, the data is retained. It's one or the other.

>>

>> On an AT board, pushing the reset button momentarily cuts the power

>> supply

>> to the entire system (except that part that's kept alive by the CMOS

>> battery.) AFAICT, a restart accomplishes the same thing via electronic

>> means.

>>

>> With ATX boards, parts of the system are kept alive, to support things

> like

>> Wake-On LAN. But only those parts that are necessary to keep alive while

> the

>> machine is "turned off." RAM isn't one of those components. Resetting or

>> restarting does the same thing to all the rest of the components as it

> does

>> in an AT board -- momentarily cuts power to those components to reset

> them.

>>

>> But maybe I'm totally wrong, I don't know. Again, if you can find a

>> reputable resource that describes all these functions in technical

>> detail,

>> something that takes you through exactly what happens at every step of a

>> startup, shutdown, manual reset and programmatic reset, I'd be very

>> interested. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but if so, I want the real story,

>> not

>> anecdotal evidence or simplistic articles that don't walk me through the

>> processes. I thought I saw a link in this thread to an article that

> claimed

>> the same thing you do, but I can't find it now. I did take a quick glance

> at

>> it, but it didn't offer any more explanation than you have, nor did I

>> recognize it as an established technical resource.

>>

>> I'd do it myself, but I have a lot on my plate for the next few weeks.

> Maybe

>> PCGuide explains it. But I figure since you made the claim, and perhaps

> have

>> more free time than I do, you'd be willing to find the resources and

> settle

>> it once and for all (at least for us.) If you don't want to, that's fine,

>> but I thought you might be willing. I won't be here for a good ten days,

>> anyway, and I'll probably have no access to the NGs, though that isn't

>> certain, so there's no hurry, <s>.

>>

>> (Tired and yawning as I was when I wrote that previous post last night,

>> at

>> midnight, half an hour after I lay down I was wide awake, worrying about

> all

>> the things I have to do this weekend in preparation for a busy trip out

>> of

>> town next week. Go figure.)

>>

>> --

>> Gary S. Terhune

>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>

>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> news:u6XQyNi5HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>> I'm usually up a bit late - I'm kinda a nite owl. :-)

>>>

>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>> What makes you say that? I'm serious. I want a reputable cite that

> explains

>>>> it all in gory detail. ATX boards are "kept alive" unless you pull the

> plug

>>>> or turn off the PWS using a switch (which only some have.)

>>>

>>> I don't know anything about ATX boards, per se. Maybe ATX boards never

>>> remove power from the RAM when you turn the computer off, but that sure

>>> seems unlikely, as there's not much point.

>>>

>>>> What about that

>>>> case? According to your logic, even turning the computer off might not

> flush

>>>> RAM.

>>>

>>> Well, "flush" RAM is not the correct terminology here. Let me

>>> explain:

>>>

>>> Only by turning the computer off will the entire RAM memory contents

> (with

>>> some parts still potentially containing some code or data) effectively

>>> destroyed.

>>>

>>> So when you turn the computer back on again, the contents of all the RAM

>>> will be random to begin with. That can't happen with a reboot.

>>>

>>>> Why do you think it is something to take for granted that a reboot

>>>> doesn't

>>>> clear RAM, since it resets everything else?

>>>

>>> I think some of this misunderstanding is due to my misuse of the term

>>> "clear

>>> RAM" (if i said that term) here, as I explained above.

>>>

>>>> What use is the data contained

>>>> therein? What reason would the designers have for maintaining that data

>>>> through a reboot?

>>>

>>> But rebooting does not wipe out the contents of all the RAM. It's not

> a

>>> question of "trying to maintain the data" - you're missing my point.

>>> It's

>>> rather that some of it is still left there.

>>>

>>>> Why wouldn't the juice be momentarily cut from RAM like it

>>>> is for nearly everything else. Or does a reboot even do that at all,

>>>> for

> any

>>>> component?

>>>

>>> AFAIK, rebooting does NOT remove the *power* from all the RAM chips.

>>> And

>>> if you don't remove the power from the RAM, some of its data contents

> will

>>> still remain, (unless you have some program that deliberately writes

>>> data

>>> into all the cells, which would be a separate utility (like to check out

>>> the

>>> RAM).

>>>

>>>> Yes I want a cite or three. I want to learn more about it.

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>

>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:uDkCodh5HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Cite? For what? The fact that the only way RAM memory is

> completely

>>>>> cleared out is to turn off the computer? Surely you jest!

>>>>>

>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>> Again... Cite? Make it a good one.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:u3TLi1f5HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:ee6leLG5HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

>>>>>>>>> Just to clarify (and to correct my own mistakes in terminology):

>>>>>>>>> There are three ways to restart a Windows 98 or 95 computer.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> 1. Shutdown, and then restart the machine manually.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> That is a cold boot.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> 2. Restart or Reboot, which does the same as above except you

>>>>>>>>> don't

>>>>>>>>> have to press any button to restart.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> This one is called a "warm boot" by "Windows 98 Secrets"

>>>>>>>> (Livingston

>>>>>>>> &

>>>>>>>> Straub), p.297... "This option works just like Shut Down does, but

> it

>>>>>>>> doesn't require that you press Ctrl-Alt-Delete to restart Windows

> 98.

>>>>>>>> It

>>>>>>>> restarts Windows 98 with a warm boot."

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Since this does reach back to BIOS & post, I tend to agree with you

>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>> it is no different from a cold boot.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> But you're wrong, because it does NOT remove any resident code or

> data

>>>>>>> left

>>>>>>> in memory that could be problematic (in some instances). So it is

> NOT

>>>>>>> "identical", per se, by definition.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> In addition, it is also not identical because the internal hardware

>>>>>>> (electronics) has not been powered off and then back on again, which

>>>>>>> could have some relevance for both hardware and software (low level)

>>>>>>> issues, in

>>>>>>> some instances).

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> That all being said, the practical results are so similar in MOST

>>>>>>> cases

>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>> it probably don't matter too much.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Q.E.D.

>

August 24, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

Well, I've worked with electronics (and am an EE) all these years, as you

probably know, so at least that part just seems so evident to me (probably

from doing this kinda stuff in the lab for sooo many years, lol).

I used the term pseudorandom, as I'm pretty sure it (the data contents of

the RAM) is not completely statistically random, that's all.

When you reboot your computer, you are NOT removing power from the RAM chip,

like you are when you turn it off. And THAT is a critical difference (in

terms of the contents of the RAM cells).

Whether that becomes, or can become, problematic, in some cases, is a

separate issue. :-).

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> OK, I don't know. But what makes the data in RAM change from organized to

> pseudo-random? Regardless, what I believe is that this behavior isn't

> changed by shutting down and then starting, as opposed to resetting.

>

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

>

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:uCaQjSo5HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>> I don't buy this "data remains in RAM" or "some of the data remains in

RAM"

>>> or even that it becomes random. Here's the way I look at it, based upon

>>> observation and deductive logic. RAM is kept alive by electricity. No

>>> electricity, the ones turn to zeros (or vice versa, but it isn't

random.)

>>

>> Let me get this straight. You think that when you turn the computer

>> back

>> on, the RAM contents are either all ones or all zeros? No way, Jose!

>> Go take a peek sometime using debug.

>>

>> If you take a RAM IC, and power it up (like on a breadboard), the

contents

>> of its memory locations will be pseudorandom, and will NOT be all ones or

>> all zeroes!

>>

>>> Since the data in RAM isn't worth a damn after a restart, there's no

reason

>>> to keep the RAM alive.

>>

>> It's not really a question of "alive" or "dead" (some misleading

>> terminology

>> here).

>> Well, ok, technically, if you want to use the term "dead" here, that

would

>> only apply when power is removed from the RAM chip. We can agree that

>> then, and then only, is it dead.

>>

>>> Either that or nothing happens to RAM when the

>>> electricity is cut, it remains in the last-used state, which means that

even

>>

>> No, it does NOT remain in the last used state (the contents or data in

the

>> RAM cells, I mean). But that IS true for ROM, obviously!

>>

>>> if you shut down, the data is retained. It's one or the other.

>>>

>>> On an AT board, pushing the reset button momentarily cuts the power

>>> supply

>>> to the entire system (except that part that's kept alive by the CMOS

>>> battery.) AFAICT, a restart accomplishes the same thing via electronic

>>> means.

>>>

>>> With ATX boards, parts of the system are kept alive, to support things

like

>>> Wake-On LAN. But only those parts that are necessary to keep alive while

the

>>> machine is "turned off." RAM isn't one of those components. Resetting or

>>> restarting does the same thing to all the rest of the components as it

does

>>> in an AT board -- momentarily cuts power to those components to reset

them.

>>>

>>> But maybe I'm totally wrong, I don't know. Again, if you can find a

>>> reputable resource that describes all these functions in technical

>>> detail,

>>> something that takes you through exactly what happens at every step of a

>>> startup, shutdown, manual reset and programmatic reset, I'd be very

>>> interested. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but if so, I want the real story,

>>> not

>>> anecdotal evidence or simplistic articles that don't walk me through the

>>> processes. I thought I saw a link in this thread to an article that

claimed

>>> the same thing you do, but I can't find it now. I did take a quick

glance at

>>> it, but it didn't offer any more explanation than you have, nor did I

>>> recognize it as an established technical resource.

>>>

>>> I'd do it myself, but I have a lot on my plate for the next few weeks.

Maybe

>>> PCGuide explains it. But I figure since you made the claim, and perhaps

have

>>> more free time than I do, you'd be willing to find the resources and

settle

>>> it once and for all (at least for us.) If you don't want to, that's

fine,

>>> but I thought you might be willing. I won't be here for a good ten days,

>>> anyway, and I'll probably have no access to the NGs, though that isn't

>>> certain, so there's no hurry, <s>.

>>>

>>> (Tired and yawning as I was when I wrote that previous post last night,

>>> at

>>> midnight, half an hour after I lay down I was wide awake, worrying about

all

>>> the things I have to do this weekend in preparation for a busy trip out

>>> of

>>> town next week. Go figure.)

>>>

>>> --

>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>

>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>> news:u6XQyNi5HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>> I'm usually up a bit late - I'm kinda a nite owl. :-)

>>>>

>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>> What makes you say that? I'm serious. I want a reputable cite that

>>>>> explains it all in gory detail. ATX boards are "kept alive" unless you

>>>>> pull the plug or turn off the PWS using a switch (which only some

have.)

>>>>

>>>> I don't know anything about ATX boards, per se. Maybe ATX boards

never

>>>> remove power from the RAM when you turn the computer off, but that sure

>>>> seems unlikely, as there's not much point.

>>>>

>>>>> What about that

>>>>> case? According to your logic, even turning the computer off might not

>>>>> flush RAM.

>>>>

>>>> Well, "flush" RAM is not the correct terminology here. Let me

>>>> explain:

>>>>

>>>> Only by turning the computer off will the entire RAM memory contents

(with

>>>> some parts still potentially containing some code or data) effectively

>>>> destroyed.

>>>>

>>>> So when you turn the computer back on again, the contents of all the

RAM

>>>> will be random to begin with. That can't happen with a reboot.

>>>>

>>>>> Why do you think it is something to take for granted that a reboot

>>>>> doesn't

>>>>> clear RAM, since it resets everything else?

>>>>

>>>> I think some of this misunderstanding is due to my misuse of the term

>>>> "clear

>>>> RAM" (if i said that term) here, as I explained above.

>>>>

>>>>> What use is the data contained

>>>>> therein? What reason would the designers have for maintaining that

data

>>>>> through a reboot?

>>>>

>>>> But rebooting does not wipe out the contents of all the RAM. It's

not a

>>>> question of "trying to maintain the data" - you're missing my point.

>>>> It's

>>>> rather that some of it is still left there.

>>>>

>>>>> Why wouldn't the juice be momentarily cut from RAM like it

>>>>> is for nearly everything else. Or does a reboot even do that at all,

>>>>> for

>> any

>>>>> component?

>>>>

>>>> AFAIK, rebooting does NOT remove the *power* from all the RAM chips.

>>>> And

>>>> if you don't remove the power from the RAM, some of its data contents

will

>>>> still remain, (unless you have some program that deliberately writes

>>>> data

>>>> into all the cells, which would be a separate utility (like to check

out

>>>> the

>>>> RAM).

>>>>

>>>>> Yes I want a cite or three. I want to learn more about it.

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>

>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:uDkCodh5HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> Cite? For what? The fact that the only way RAM memory is

>>>>>> completely cleared out is to turn off the computer? Surely you

jest!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>> Again... Cite? Make it a good one.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:u3TLi1f5HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:ee6leLG5HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

>>>>>>>>>> Just to clarify (and to correct my own mistakes in terminology):

>>>>>>>>>> There are three ways to restart a Windows 98 or 95 computer.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> 1. Shutdown, and then restart the machine manually.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> That is a cold boot.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> 2. Restart or Reboot, which does the same as above except you

>>>>>>>>>> don't

>>>>>>>>>> have to press any button to restart.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> This one is called a "warm boot" by "Windows 98 Secrets"

>>>>>>>>> (Livingston

>>>>>>>>> &

>>>>>>>>> Straub), p.297... "This option works just like Shut Down does, but

it

>>>>>>>>> doesn't require that you press Ctrl-Alt-Delete to restart Windows

98.

>>>>>>>>> It

>>>>>>>>> restarts Windows 98 with a warm boot."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Since this does reach back to BIOS & post, I tend to agree with

you

>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>> it is no different from a cold boot.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> But you're wrong, because it does NOT remove any resident code or

data

>>>>>>>> left

>>>>>>>> in memory that could be problematic (in some instances). So it

is

>>>>>>>> NOT "identical", per se, by definition.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> In addition, it is also not identical because the internal hardware

>>>>>>>> (electronics) has not been powered off and then back on again,

which

>>>>>>>> could have some relevance for both hardware and software (low

level)

>>>>>>>> issues, in

>>>>>>>> some instances).

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> That all being said, the practical results are so similar in MOST

>>>>>>>> cases

>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>> it probably don't matter too much.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Q.E.D.

August 24, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

What makes the data random? The loss of a "table of contents"? How does

removing power randomize the data if it doesn't change the bits? If it does

change the bits, why not to all ones or all zeros, rather than random?

Resetting (whether manually or programmatically) certainly appears to

interrupt the power to the video card, the sound card, the hard drives...

Why not to the RAM?

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:ueTGTqo5HHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Well, I've worked with electronics (and am an EE) all these years, as you

> probably know, so at least that part just seems so evident to me (probably

> from doing this kinda stuff in the lab for sooo many years, lol).

>

> I used the term pseudorandom, as I'm pretty sure it (the data contents of

> the RAM) is not completely statistically random, that's all.

>

> When you reboot your computer, you are NOT removing power from the RAM

> chip,

> like you are when you turn it off. And THAT is a critical difference (in

> terms of the contents of the RAM cells).

>

> Whether that becomes, or can become, problematic, in some cases, is a

> separate issue. :-).

>

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> OK, I don't know. But what makes the data in RAM change from organized to

>> pseudo-random? Regardless, what I believe is that this behavior isn't

>> changed by shutting down and then starting, as opposed to resetting.

>>

>> --

>> Gary S. Terhune

>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>

>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> news:uCaQjSo5HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>> I don't buy this "data remains in RAM" or "some of the data remains in

> RAM"

>>>> or even that it becomes random. Here's the way I look at it, based upon

>>>> observation and deductive logic. RAM is kept alive by electricity. No

>>>> electricity, the ones turn to zeros (or vice versa, but it isn't

> random.)

>>>

>>> Let me get this straight. You think that when you turn the computer

>>> back

>>> on, the RAM contents are either all ones or all zeros? No way, Jose!

>>> Go take a peek sometime using debug.

>>>

>>> If you take a RAM IC, and power it up (like on a breadboard), the

> contents

>>> of its memory locations will be pseudorandom, and will NOT be all ones

>>> or

>>> all zeroes!

>>>

>>>> Since the data in RAM isn't worth a damn after a restart, there's no

> reason

>>>> to keep the RAM alive.

>>>

>>> It's not really a question of "alive" or "dead" (some misleading

>>> terminology

>>> here).

>>> Well, ok, technically, if you want to use the term "dead" here, that

> would

>>> only apply when power is removed from the RAM chip. We can agree that

>>> then, and then only, is it dead.

>>>

>>>> Either that or nothing happens to RAM when the

>>>> electricity is cut, it remains in the last-used state, which means that

> even

>>>

>>> No, it does NOT remain in the last used state (the contents or data in

> the

>>> RAM cells, I mean). But that IS true for ROM, obviously!

>>>

>>>> if you shut down, the data is retained. It's one or the other.

>>>>

>>>> On an AT board, pushing the reset button momentarily cuts the power

>>>> supply

>>>> to the entire system (except that part that's kept alive by the CMOS

>>>> battery.) AFAICT, a restart accomplishes the same thing via electronic

>>>> means.

>>>>

>>>> With ATX boards, parts of the system are kept alive, to support things

> like

>>>> Wake-On LAN. But only those parts that are necessary to keep alive

>>>> while

> the

>>>> machine is "turned off." RAM isn't one of those components. Resetting

>>>> or

>>>> restarting does the same thing to all the rest of the components as it

> does

>>>> in an AT board -- momentarily cuts power to those components to reset

> them.

>>>>

>>>> But maybe I'm totally wrong, I don't know. Again, if you can find a

>>>> reputable resource that describes all these functions in technical

>>>> detail,

>>>> something that takes you through exactly what happens at every step of

>>>> a

>>>> startup, shutdown, manual reset and programmatic reset, I'd be very

>>>> interested. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but if so, I want the real story,

>>>> not

>>>> anecdotal evidence or simplistic articles that don't walk me through

>>>> the

>>>> processes. I thought I saw a link in this thread to an article that

> claimed

>>>> the same thing you do, but I can't find it now. I did take a quick

> glance at

>>>> it, but it didn't offer any more explanation than you have, nor did I

>>>> recognize it as an established technical resource.

>>>>

>>>> I'd do it myself, but I have a lot on my plate for the next few weeks.

> Maybe

>>>> PCGuide explains it. But I figure since you made the claim, and perhaps

> have

>>>> more free time than I do, you'd be willing to find the resources and

> settle

>>>> it once and for all (at least for us.) If you don't want to, that's

> fine,

>>>> but I thought you might be willing. I won't be here for a good ten

>>>> days,

>>>> anyway, and I'll probably have no access to the NGs, though that isn't

>>>> certain, so there's no hurry, <s>.

>>>>

>>>> (Tired and yawning as I was when I wrote that previous post last night,

>>>> at

>>>> midnight, half an hour after I lay down I was wide awake, worrying

>>>> about

> all

>>>> the things I have to do this weekend in preparation for a busy trip out

>>>> of

>>>> town next week. Go figure.)

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>

>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:u6XQyNi5HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>> I'm usually up a bit late - I'm kinda a nite owl. :-)

>>>>>

>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>> What makes you say that? I'm serious. I want a reputable cite that

>>>>>> explains it all in gory detail. ATX boards are "kept alive" unless

>>>>>> you

>>>>>> pull the plug or turn off the PWS using a switch (which only some

> have.)

>>>>>

>>>>> I don't know anything about ATX boards, per se. Maybe ATX boards

> never

>>>>> remove power from the RAM when you turn the computer off, but that

>>>>> sure

>>>>> seems unlikely, as there's not much point.

>>>>>

>>>>>> What about that

>>>>>> case? According to your logic, even turning the computer off might

>>>>>> not

>>>>>> flush RAM.

>>>>>

>>>>> Well, "flush" RAM is not the correct terminology here. Let me

>>>>> explain:

>>>>>

>>>>> Only by turning the computer off will the entire RAM memory contents

> (with

>>>>> some parts still potentially containing some code or data) effectively

>>>>> destroyed.

>>>>>

>>>>> So when you turn the computer back on again, the contents of all the

> RAM

>>>>> will be random to begin with. That can't happen with a reboot.

>>>>>

>>>>>> Why do you think it is something to take for granted that a reboot

>>>>>> doesn't

>>>>>> clear RAM, since it resets everything else?

>>>>>

>>>>> I think some of this misunderstanding is due to my misuse of the term

>>>>> "clear

>>>>> RAM" (if i said that term) here, as I explained above.

>>>>>

>>>>>> What use is the data contained

>>>>>> therein? What reason would the designers have for maintaining that

> data

>>>>>> through a reboot?

>>>>>

>>>>> But rebooting does not wipe out the contents of all the RAM. It's

> not a

>>>>> question of "trying to maintain the data" - you're missing my point.

>>>>> It's

>>>>> rather that some of it is still left there.

>>>>>

>>>>>> Why wouldn't the juice be momentarily cut from RAM like it

>>>>>> is for nearly everything else. Or does a reboot even do that at all,

>>>>>> for

>>> any

>>>>>> component?

>>>>>

>>>>> AFAIK, rebooting does NOT remove the *power* from all the RAM chips.

>>>>> And

>>>>> if you don't remove the power from the RAM, some of its data contents

> will

>>>>> still remain, (unless you have some program that deliberately writes

>>>>> data

>>>>> into all the cells, which would be a separate utility (like to check

> out

>>>>> the

>>>>> RAM).

>>>>>

>>>>>> Yes I want a cite or three. I want to learn more about it.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:uDkCodh5HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> Cite? For what? The fact that the only way RAM memory is

>>>>>>> completely cleared out is to turn off the computer? Surely you

> jest!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>>> Again... Cite? Make it a good one.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:u3TLi1f5HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>> news:ee6leLG5HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

>>>>>>>>>>> Just to clarify (and to correct my own mistakes in terminology):

>>>>>>>>>>> There are three ways to restart a Windows 98 or 95 computer.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Shutdown, and then restart the machine manually.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> That is a cold boot.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Restart or Reboot, which does the same as above except you

>>>>>>>>>>> don't

>>>>>>>>>>> have to press any button to restart.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> This one is called a "warm boot" by "Windows 98 Secrets"

>>>>>>>>>> (Livingston

>>>>>>>>>> &

>>>>>>>>>> Straub), p.297... "This option works just like Shut Down does,

>>>>>>>>>> but

> it

>>>>>>>>>> doesn't require that you press Ctrl-Alt-Delete to restart Windows

> 98.

>>>>>>>>>> It

>>>>>>>>>> restarts Windows 98 with a warm boot."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Since this does reach back to BIOS & post, I tend to agree with

> you

>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>> it is no different from a cold boot.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> But you're wrong, because it does NOT remove any resident code or

> data

>>>>>>>>> left

>>>>>>>>> in memory that could be problematic (in some instances). So it

> is

>>>>>>>>> NOT "identical", per se, by definition.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> In addition, it is also not identical because the internal

>>>>>>>>> hardware

>>>>>>>>> (electronics) has not been powered off and then back on again,

> which

>>>>>>>>> could have some relevance for both hardware and software (low

> level)

>>>>>>>>> issues, in

>>>>>>>>> some instances).

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> That all being said, the practical results are so similar in MOST

>>>>>>>>> cases

>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>> it probably don't matter too much.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Q.E.D.

>

August 24, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> What makes the data random?

The question is a bit backwards. Why wouldn't it be random? More on

that below.

> The loss of a "table of contents"? How does

> removing power randomize the data if it doesn't change the bits?

Where did THAT come from? There are no "bits", per se, when the power is

off. It has nothing to do with a table of contents. Memory cells can

store a logic 1 or a logic 0, but only when they have power going to them.

If you remove the power, the data is gone. By reapplying power, the cells

come up in some pseudorandom state, since they haven't had anything written

into their cells yet.

> If it does change the bits, why not to all ones or all zeros, rather than

random?

The question is backwards. Why would they come up as all ones or all

zeroes? They're not all identical! Just like snowflakes, there are

individual differences. Just like white noise consists of a mix of random

frequencies. (A whole slew of them, actually).

> Resetting (whether manually or programmatically) certainly appears to

> interrupt the power to the video card, the sound card, the hard drives...

> Why not to the RAM?

The only way to interrupt the power to anything is to *remove* the power,

which is done by turning the computer or appliance off. And the power

supply voltage goes to zero.

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

>

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:ueTGTqo5HHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Well, I've worked with electronics (and am an EE) all these years, as you

>> probably know, so at least that part just seems so evident to me

(probably

>> from doing this kinda stuff in the lab for sooo many years, lol).

>>

>> I used the term pseudorandom, as I'm pretty sure it (the data contents of

>> the RAM) is not completely statistically random, that's all.

>>

>> When you reboot your computer, you are NOT removing power from the RAM

>> chip, like you are when you turn it off. And THAT is a critical

difference (in

>> terms of the contents of the RAM cells).

>>

>> Whether that becomes, or can become, problematic, in some cases, is a

>> separate issue. :-).

>>

>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>> OK, I don't know. But what makes the data in RAM change from organized

to

>>> pseudo-random? Regardless, what I believe is that this behavior isn't

>>> changed by shutting down and then starting, as opposed to resetting.

>>>

>>> --

>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>

>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>> news:uCaQjSo5HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>> I don't buy this "data remains in RAM" or "some of the data remains in

>>>>> RAM" or even that it becomes random. Here's the way I look at it,

based

>>>>> upon observation and deductive logic. RAM is kept alive by

electricity. No

>>>>> electricity, the ones turn to zeros (or vice versa, but it isn't

random.)

>>>>

>>>> Let me get this straight. You think that when you turn the computer

>>>> back

>>>> on, the RAM contents are either all ones or all zeros? No way, Jose!

>>>> Go take a peek sometime using debug.

>>>>

>>>> If you take a RAM IC, and power it up (like on a breadboard), the

contents

>>>> of its memory locations will be pseudorandom, and will NOT be all ones

>>>> or

>>>> all zeroes!

>>>>

>>>>> Since the data in RAM isn't worth a damn after a restart, there's no

>>>>> reason to keep the RAM alive.

>>>>

>>>> It's not really a question of "alive" or "dead" (some misleading

>>>> terminology

>>>> here).

>>>> Well, ok, technically, if you want to use the term "dead" here, that

would

>>>> only apply when power is removed from the RAM chip. We can agree

that

>>>> then, and then only, is it dead.

>>>>

>>>>> Either that or nothing happens to RAM when the

>>>>> electricity is cut, it remains in the last-used state, which means

that

>>>>> even

>>>>

>>>> No, it does NOT remain in the last used state (the contents or data in

the

>>>> RAM cells, I mean). But that IS true for ROM, obviously!

>>>>

>>>>> if you shut down, the data is retained. It's one or the other.

>>>>>

>>>>> On an AT board, pushing the reset button momentarily cuts the power

>>>>> supply

>>>>> to the entire system (except that part that's kept alive by the CMOS

>>>>> battery.) AFAICT, a restart accomplishes the same thing via electronic

>>>>> means.

>>>>>

>>>>> With ATX boards, parts of the system are kept alive, to support things

>>>>> like Wake-On LAN. But only those parts that are necessary to keep

alive

>>>>> while

>> the

>>>>> machine is "turned off." RAM isn't one of those components. Resetting

>>>>> or

>>>>> restarting does the same thing to all the rest of the components as it

>>>>> does in an AT board -- momentarily cuts power to those components to

>>>>> reset them.

>>>>>

>>>>> But maybe I'm totally wrong, I don't know. Again, if you can find a

>>>>> reputable resource that describes all these functions in technical

>>>>> detail,

>>>>> something that takes you through exactly what happens at every step of

>>>>> a

>>>>> startup, shutdown, manual reset and programmatic reset, I'd be very

>>>>> interested. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but if so, I want the real story,

>>>>> not

>>>>> anecdotal evidence or simplistic articles that don't walk me through

>>>>> the

>>>>> processes. I thought I saw a link in this thread to an article that

>>>>> claimed the same thing you do, but I can't find it now. I did take a

>>>>> quick glance at it, but it didn't offer any more explanation than you

>>>>> have, nor did I recognize it as an established technical resource.

>>>>>

>>>>> I'd do it myself, but I have a lot on my plate for the next few weeks.

>>>>> Maybe PCGuide explains it. But I figure since you made the claim, and

>>>>> perhaps have more free time than I do, you'd be willing to find the

>>>>> resources and settle it once and for all (at least for us.) If you

don't

>>>>> want to, that's fine, but I thought you might be willing. I won't be

here

>>>>> for a good ten days,

>>>>> anyway, and I'll probably have no access to the NGs, though that isn't

>>>>> certain, so there's no hurry, <s>.

>>>>>

>>>>> (Tired and yawning as I was when I wrote that previous post last

night,

>>>>> at

>>>>> midnight, half an hour after I lay down I was wide awake, worrying

>>>>> about

>> all

>>>>> the things I have to do this weekend in preparation for a busy trip

out

>>>>> of

>>>>> town next week. Go figure.)

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>

>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:u6XQyNi5HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> I'm usually up a bit late - I'm kinda a nite owl. :-)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>> What makes you say that? I'm serious. I want a reputable cite that

>>>>>>> explains it all in gory detail. ATX boards are "kept alive" unless

>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>> pull the plug or turn off the PWS using a switch (which only some

have.)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I don't know anything about ATX boards, per se. Maybe ATX boards

never

>>>>>> remove power from the RAM when you turn the computer off, but that

>>>>>> sure

>>>>>> seems unlikely, as there's not much point.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> What about that

>>>>>>> case? According to your logic, even turning the computer off might

>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>> flush RAM.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Well, "flush" RAM is not the correct terminology here. Let me

>>>>>> explain:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Only by turning the computer off will the entire RAM memory contents

>>>>>> (with some parts still potentially containing some code or data)

>>>>>> effectively destroyed.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> So when you turn the computer back on again, the contents of all the

RAM

>>>>>> will be random to begin with. That can't happen with a reboot.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Why do you think it is something to take for granted that a reboot

>>>>>>> doesn't

>>>>>>> clear RAM, since it resets everything else?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I think some of this misunderstanding is due to my misuse of the term

>>>>>> "clear

>>>>>> RAM" (if i said that term) here, as I explained above.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> What use is the data contained

>>>>>>> therein? What reason would the designers have for maintaining that

data

>>>>>>> through a reboot?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> But rebooting does not wipe out the contents of all the RAM. It's

not

>>>>>> a question of "trying to maintain the data" - you're missing my

point.

>>>>>> It's

>>>>>> rather that some of it is still left there.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Why wouldn't the juice be momentarily cut from RAM like it

>>>>>>> is for nearly everything else. Or does a reboot even do that at all,

>>>>>>> for

>>>> any

>>>>>>> component?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> AFAIK, rebooting does NOT remove the *power* from all the RAM chips.

>>>>>> And

>>>>>> if you don't remove the power from the RAM, some of its data contents

>>>>>> will still remain, (unless you have some program that deliberately

writes

>>>>>> data

>>>>>> into all the cells, which would be a separate utility (like to check

out

>>>>>> the

>>>>>> RAM).

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Yes I want a cite or three. I want to learn more about it.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:uDkCodh5HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>> Cite? For what? The fact that the only way RAM memory is

>>>>>>>> completely cleared out is to turn off the computer? Surely you

>>>>>>>> jest!

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Again... Cite? Make it a good one.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:u3TLi1f5HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>> news:ee6leLG5HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to clarify (and to correct my own mistakes in

terminology):

>>>>>>>>>>>> There are three ways to restart a Windows 98 or 95 computer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Shutdown, and then restart the machine manually.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> That is a cold boot.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Restart or Reboot, which does the same as above except you

>>>>>>>>>>>> don't

>>>>>>>>>>>> have to press any button to restart.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> This one is called a "warm boot" by "Windows 98 Secrets"

>>>>>>>>>>> (Livingston

>>>>>>>>>>> &

>>>>>>>>>>> Straub), p.297... "This option works just like Shut Down does,

>>>>>>>>>>> but

>> it

>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't require that you press Ctrl-Alt-Delete to restart

Windows

>>>>>>>>>>> 98. It

>>>>>>>>>>> restarts Windows 98 with a warm boot."

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Since this does reach back to BIOS & post, I tend to agree with

you

>>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>> it is no different from a cold boot.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> But you're wrong, because it does NOT remove any resident code or

>>>>>>>>>> data left

>>>>>>>>>> in memory that could be problematic (in some instances). So it

is

>>>>>>>>>> NOT "identical", per se, by definition.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> In addition, it is also not identical because the internal

>>>>>>>>>> hardware

>>>>>>>>>> (electronics) has not been powered off and then back on again,

which

>>>>>>>>>> could have some relevance for both hardware and software (low

level)

>>>>>>>>>> issues, in

>>>>>>>>>> some instances).

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> That all being said, the practical results are so similar in MOST

>>>>>>>>>> cases

>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>> it probably don't matter too much.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Q.E.D.

August 24, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:12:55 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> put

finger to keyboard and composed:

>"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>news:ee6leLG5HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

>| Just to clarify (and to correct my own mistakes in terminology):

>| There are three ways to restart a Windows 98 or 95 computer.

>|

>| 1. Shutdown, and then restart the machine manually.

>

>That is a cold boot.

>

>| 2. Restart or Reboot, which does the same as above except you don't

>| have to press any button to restart.

>

>This one is called a "warm boot" by "Windows 98 Secrets" (Livingston &

>Straub), p.297... "This option works just like Shut Down does, but it

>doesn't require that you press Ctrl-Alt-Delete to restart Windows 98. It

>restarts Windows 98 with a warm boot."

>

>Since this does reach back to BIOS & post, I tend to agree with you that

>it is no different from a cold boot.

A Shutdown -> Restart on my socket 7 box causes the machine to POST

and test the RAM. Hitting Ctrl-Alt-Del twice from within Windows

appears to do the same thing. However, a Ctrl-Alt-Del from a DOS

prompt (in real DOS mode) results in POSTing without a RAM check.

I suspect that in GUI mode the Ctrl-Alt-Del combo is trapped by

Windows whereas in DOS mode it is trapped by the BIOS or the 8042

keyboard controller.

>| 3. So-called "Warm" or "Soft" restart (not reboot), which only

>| restarts Windows, while DOS remains resident. Common in Win95, and

>| supported in Win98, mostly for those apps from 95 days that would

>| perform such a restart as part of Setup. Yes, it's possible to

>| manually do it in Win98, but I forget how.

>

>Could it be this "undocumented" feature from the book (same page)...?...

>

>"To restart Windows 98 quickly without going through the warm reboot

>process, mark Restart, and then hold down your Shift key while clicking

>the OK button in the Shut Down Windows dialog box."

>

>I intend to try it later!

It works on my machine. AFAICT the GUI is restarted but nothing else

is touched. I say this because my autoexec.bat file is structured like

this:

win

Neither block of code is executed during the warm restart.

BTW, the last block of code is not executed after a Shutdown ->

Restart, either.

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

August 24, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:OLaVzxp5HHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> What makes the data random?

>

> The question is a bit backwards. Why wouldn't it be random? More on

> that below.

>

>> The loss of a "table of contents"? How does

>> removing power randomize the data if it doesn't change the bits?

>

> Where did THAT come from? There are no "bits", per se, when the power

> is

> off. It has nothing to do with a table of contents. Memory cells can

> store a logic 1 or a logic 0, but only when they have power going to them.

> If you remove the power, the data is gone. By reapplying power, the

> cells

> come up in some pseudorandom state, since they haven't had anything

> written

> into their cells yet.

OK, memory cells are either 0 or 1. That their unpowered sate is random

doesn't make sense to me, nor do I see why restoring power would make them

randomly be 0's or 1's, but OK. That's one of the things I'd like to see in

an authoratative article.

>> If it does change the bits, why not to all ones or all zeros, rather than

> random?

>

> The question is backwards. Why would they come up as all ones or all

> zeroes? They're not all identical! Just like snowflakes, there are

> individual differences. Just like white noise consists of a mix of

> random

> frequencies. (A whole slew of them, actually).

I don't buy that, but if you can show me some documentation... Memory cells

are randomly positive or negative in charge absent power? I don't know a lot

about the subject, but it's counter intuitive.

>> Resetting (whether manually or programmatically) certainly appears to

>> interrupt the power to the video card, the sound card, the hard drives...

>> Why not to the RAM?

>

> The only way to interrupt the power to anything is to *remove* the power,

> which is done by turning the computer or appliance off. And the power

> supply voltage goes to zero.

And I say that when you do a reset, whether by pushing the reset button or

via an electronic signal, the power to the motherboard (in AT boards) IS

momentarily cut, disrupting the power between the PWS and the mobo. Makes a

lot more sense to me than your contention. If not, please explain how the

devices ARE reset. Some complicated signal sent to each one to reset, while

the mobo remains alive? Again, I'd like to see authoritative documentation,

both for AT and ATX boards, though we can stick to AT if you wish.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> news:ueTGTqo5HHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>> Well, I've worked with electronics (and am an EE) all these years, as

>>> you

>>> probably know, so at least that part just seems so evident to me

> (probably

>>> from doing this kinda stuff in the lab for sooo many years, lol).

>>>

>>> I used the term pseudorandom, as I'm pretty sure it (the data contents

>>> of

>>> the RAM) is not completely statistically random, that's all.

>>>

>>> When you reboot your computer, you are NOT removing power from the RAM

>>> chip, like you are when you turn it off. And THAT is a critical

> difference (in

>>> terms of the contents of the RAM cells).

>>>

>>> Whether that becomes, or can become, problematic, in some cases, is a

>>> separate issue. :-).

>>>

>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>> OK, I don't know. But what makes the data in RAM change from organized

> to

>>>> pseudo-random? Regardless, what I believe is that this behavior isn't

>>>> changed by shutting down and then starting, as opposed to resetting.

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>

>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:uCaQjSo5HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>> I don't buy this "data remains in RAM" or "some of the data remains

>>>>>> in

>>>>>> RAM" or even that it becomes random. Here's the way I look at it,

> based

>>>>>> upon observation and deductive logic. RAM is kept alive by

> electricity. No

>>>>>> electricity, the ones turn to zeros (or vice versa, but it isn't

> random.)

>>>>>

>>>>> Let me get this straight. You think that when you turn the computer

>>>>> back

>>>>> on, the RAM contents are either all ones or all zeros? No way,

>>>>> Jose!

>>>>> Go take a peek sometime using debug.

>>>>>

>>>>> If you take a RAM IC, and power it up (like on a breadboard), the

> contents

>>>>> of its memory locations will be pseudorandom, and will NOT be all ones

>>>>> or

>>>>> all zeroes!

>>>>>

>>>>>> Since the data in RAM isn't worth a damn after a restart, there's no

>>>>>> reason to keep the RAM alive.

>>>>>

>>>>> It's not really a question of "alive" or "dead" (some misleading

>>>>> terminology

>>>>> here).

>>>>> Well, ok, technically, if you want to use the term "dead" here, that

> would

>>>>> only apply when power is removed from the RAM chip. We can agree

> that

>>>>> then, and then only, is it dead.

>>>>>

>>>>>> Either that or nothing happens to RAM when the

>>>>>> electricity is cut, it remains in the last-used state, which means

> that

>>>>>> even

>>>>>

>>>>> No, it does NOT remain in the last used state (the contents or data in

> the

>>>>> RAM cells, I mean). But that IS true for ROM, obviously!

>>>>>

>>>>>> if you shut down, the data is retained. It's one or the other.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> On an AT board, pushing the reset button momentarily cuts the power

>>>>>> supply

>>>>>> to the entire system (except that part that's kept alive by the CMOS

>>>>>> battery.) AFAICT, a restart accomplishes the same thing via

>>>>>> electronic

>>>>>> means.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> With ATX boards, parts of the system are kept alive, to support

>>>>>> things

>>>>>> like Wake-On LAN. But only those parts that are necessary to keep

> alive

>>>>>> while

>>> the

>>>>>> machine is "turned off." RAM isn't one of those components. Resetting

>>>>>> or

>>>>>> restarting does the same thing to all the rest of the components as

>>>>>> it

>>>>>> does in an AT board -- momentarily cuts power to those components to

>>>>>> reset them.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> But maybe I'm totally wrong, I don't know. Again, if you can find a

>>>>>> reputable resource that describes all these functions in technical

>>>>>> detail,

>>>>>> something that takes you through exactly what happens at every step

>>>>>> of

>>>>>> a

>>>>>> startup, shutdown, manual reset and programmatic reset, I'd be very

>>>>>> interested. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but if so, I want the real

>>>>>> story,

>>>>>> not

>>>>>> anecdotal evidence or simplistic articles that don't walk me through

>>>>>> the

>>>>>> processes. I thought I saw a link in this thread to an article that

>>>>>> claimed the same thing you do, but I can't find it now. I did take a

>>>>>> quick glance at it, but it didn't offer any more explanation than you

>>>>>> have, nor did I recognize it as an established technical resource.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I'd do it myself, but I have a lot on my plate for the next few

>>>>>> weeks.

>>>>>> Maybe PCGuide explains it. But I figure since you made the claim, and

>>>>>> perhaps have more free time than I do, you'd be willing to find the

>>>>>> resources and settle it once and for all (at least for us.) If you

> don't

>>>>>> want to, that's fine, but I thought you might be willing. I won't be

> here

>>>>>> for a good ten days,

>>>>>> anyway, and I'll probably have no access to the NGs, though that

>>>>>> isn't

>>>>>> certain, so there's no hurry, <s>.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> (Tired and yawning as I was when I wrote that previous post last

> night,

>>>>>> at

>>>>>> midnight, half an hour after I lay down I was wide awake, worrying

>>>>>> about

>>> all

>>>>>> the things I have to do this weekend in preparation for a busy trip

> out

>>>>>> of

>>>>>> town next week. Go figure.)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:u6XQyNi5HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> I'm usually up a bit late - I'm kinda a nite owl. :-)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>>> What makes you say that? I'm serious. I want a reputable cite that

>>>>>>>> explains it all in gory detail. ATX boards are "kept alive" unless

>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>> pull the plug or turn off the PWS using a switch (which only some

> have.)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I don't know anything about ATX boards, per se. Maybe ATX boards

> never

>>>>>>> remove power from the RAM when you turn the computer off, but that

>>>>>>> sure

>>>>>>> seems unlikely, as there's not much point.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> What about that

>>>>>>>> case? According to your logic, even turning the computer off might

>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>> flush RAM.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Well, "flush" RAM is not the correct terminology here. Let me

>>>>>>> explain:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Only by turning the computer off will the entire RAM memory contents

>>>>>>> (with some parts still potentially containing some code or data)

>>>>>>> effectively destroyed.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> So when you turn the computer back on again, the contents of all the

> RAM

>>>>>>> will be random to begin with. That can't happen with a reboot.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Why do you think it is something to take for granted that a reboot

>>>>>>>> doesn't

>>>>>>>> clear RAM, since it resets everything else?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I think some of this misunderstanding is due to my misuse of the

>>>>>>> term

>>>>>>> "clear

>>>>>>> RAM" (if i said that term) here, as I explained above.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> What use is the data contained

>>>>>>>> therein? What reason would the designers have for maintaining that

> data

>>>>>>>> through a reboot?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> But rebooting does not wipe out the contents of all the RAM. It's

> not

>>>>>>> a question of "trying to maintain the data" - you're missing my

> point.

>>>>>>> It's

>>>>>>> rather that some of it is still left there.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't the juice be momentarily cut from RAM like it

>>>>>>>> is for nearly everything else. Or does a reboot even do that at

>>>>>>>> all,

>>>>>>>> for

>>>>> any

>>>>>>>> component?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> AFAIK, rebooting does NOT remove the *power* from all the RAM chips.

>>>>>>> And

>>>>>>> if you don't remove the power from the RAM, some of its data

>>>>>>> contents

>>>>>>> will still remain, (unless you have some program that deliberately

> writes

>>>>>>> data

>>>>>>> into all the cells, which would be a separate utility (like to check

> out

>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>> RAM).

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Yes I want a cite or three. I want to learn more about it.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:uDkCodh5HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>> Cite? For what? The fact that the only way RAM memory is

>>>>>>>>> completely cleared out is to turn off the computer? Surely

>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>> jest!

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Again... Cite? Make it a good one.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>> news:u3TLi1f5HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ee6leLG5HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to clarify (and to correct my own mistakes in

> terminology):

>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are three ways to restart a Windows 98 or 95 computer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Shutdown, and then restart the machine manually.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a cold boot.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Restart or Reboot, which does the same as above except you

>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't

>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to press any button to restart.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> This one is called a "warm boot" by "Windows 98 Secrets"

>>>>>>>>>>>> (Livingston

>>>>>>>>>>>> &

>>>>>>>>>>>> Straub), p.297... "This option works just like Shut Down does,

>>>>>>>>>>>> but

>>> it

>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't require that you press Ctrl-Alt-Delete to restart

> Windows

>>>>>>>>>>>> 98. It

>>>>>>>>>>>> restarts Windows 98 with a warm boot."

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this does reach back to BIOS & post, I tend to agree with

> you

>>>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>>> it is no different from a cold boot.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> But you're wrong, because it does NOT remove any resident code

>>>>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>>>> data left

>>>>>>>>>>> in memory that could be problematic (in some instances). So

>>>>>>>>>>> it

> is

>>>>>>>>>>> NOT "identical", per se, by definition.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, it is also not identical because the internal

>>>>>>>>>>> hardware

>>>>>>>>>>> (electronics) has not been powered off and then back on again,

> which

>>>>>>>>>>> could have some relevance for both hardware and software (low

> level)

>>>>>>>>>>> issues, in

>>>>>>>>>>> some instances).

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> That all being said, the practical results are so similar in

>>>>>>>>>>> MOST

>>>>>>>>>>> cases

>>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>> it probably don't matter too much.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Q.E.D.

>

August 25, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:OLaVzxp5HHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>> What makes the data random?

>>

>> The question is a bit backwards. Why wouldn't it be random? More on

>> that below.

>>

>>> The loss of a "table of contents"? How does

>>> removing power randomize the data if it doesn't change the bits?

>>

>> Where did THAT come from? There are no "bits", per se, when the power

>> is off. It has nothing to do with a table of contents. Memory cells

can

>> store a logic 1 or a logic 0, but only when they have power going to

them.

>> If you remove the power, the data is gone. By reapplying power, the

>> cells come up in some pseudorandom state, since they haven't had anything

>> written into their cells yet.

>

> OK, memory cells are either 0 or 1.

ONLY when power is applied to the chip. Then, and then only.

> That their unpowered sate is random

No, not their unpowered state. In their "repowered up" state. There is

a crucial distinction here. (In the unpowered state the whole statement

is meaningless).

> doesn't make sense to me, nor do I see why restoring power would make them

> randomly be 0's or 1's, but OK. That's one of the things I'd like to see

in

> an authoratative article.

Well, why don't you go verify it yourself? By a few static RAM chips,

apply power, go look at their data outputs as you apply consecutive

addresses for each cell. Then remove power (the requisite power supply

voltage(s) to the IC so it can operate), then reapply power, and repeat the

experiment. Small static CMOS RAM chips aren't that expensive (ones you

can use for these experiments like in school labs).

OR

Use debug to examine a bunch of random memory locations for RAM in your

computer and print the screen for this. Then turn off the computer, wait

a few seconds, and then turn it back on it again, and go check out those

same addresses again (and do this for a significant number of completely

scattered RAM address banks).

>>> If it does change the bits, why not to all ones or all zeros, rather

than

>>> random?

>>

>> The question is backwards. Why would they come up as all ones or all

>> zeroes? They're not all identical! Just like snowflakes, there are

>> individual differences. Just like white noise consists of a mix of

>> random frequencies. (A whole slew of them, actually).

>

> I don't buy that, but if you can show me some documentation... Memory

cells

> are randomly positive or negative in charge absent power? I don't know a

lot

> about the subject, but it's counter intuitive.

See above (and more below).

>>> Resetting (whether manually or programmatically) certainly appears to

>>> interrupt the power to the video card, the sound card, the hard

drives...

>>> Why not to the RAM?

>>

>> The only way to interrupt the power to anything is to *remove* the power,

>> which is done by turning the computer or appliance off. And the power

>> supply voltage goes to zero.

>

> And I say that when you do a reset, whether by pushing the reset button or

> via an electronic signal, the power to the motherboard (in AT boards) IS

> momentarily cut, disrupting the power between the PWS and the mobo.

The only way to remove power (the power supply voltages) from all the IC's

on your motherboard and cards is to turn off the power (unless you have a

switch that actually turns off its power and kills it).

Pushing a reset switch is (or used to be) an action that toggles or switches

the reset line pin on the microprocessor. Microprocessors have a hardware

reset pin, which, when momentarily grounded, resets the microprocessor IC,

and sends it into its microcoded reset routine, by its sending out some

predefined addresses to the address bus).

> Makes a

> lot more sense to me than your contention. If not, please explain how the

> devices ARE reset. Some complicated signal sent to each one to reset,

while

> the mobo remains alive? Again, I'd like to see authoritative

documentation,

> both for AT and ATX boards, though we can stick to AT if you wish.

>

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

>

>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>> news:ueTGTqo5HHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>> Well, I've worked with electronics (and am an EE) all these years, as

>>>> you

>>>> probably know, so at least that part just seems so evident to me

(probably

>>>> from doing this kinda stuff in the lab for sooo many years, lol).

>>>>

>>>> I used the term pseudorandom, as I'm pretty sure it (the data contents

>>>> of

>>>> the RAM) is not completely statistically random, that's all.

>>>>

>>>> When you reboot your computer, you are NOT removing power from the RAM

>>>> chip, like you are when you turn it off. And THAT is a critical

>>>> difference (in terms of the contents of the RAM cells).

>>>>

>>>> Whether that becomes, or can become, problematic, in some cases, is a

>>>> separate issue. :-).

>>>>

>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>> OK, I don't know. But what makes the data in RAM change from organized

to

>>>>> pseudo-random? Regardless, what I believe is that this behavior isn't

>>>>> changed by shutting down and then starting, as opposed to resetting.

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>

>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:uCaQjSo5HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>> I don't buy this "data remains in RAM" or "some of the data remains

>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>> RAM" or even that it becomes random. Here's the way I look at it,

based

>>>>>>> upon observation and deductive logic. RAM is kept alive by

electricity.

>>>>>>> No electricity, the ones turn to zeros (or vice versa, but it isn't

>>>>>>> random.)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Let me get this straight. You think that when you turn the

computer

>>>>>> back

>>>>>> on, the RAM contents are either all ones or all zeros? No way,

>>>>>> Jose!

>>>>>> Go take a peek sometime using debug.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> If you take a RAM IC, and power it up (like on a breadboard), the

>>>>>> contents of its memory locations will be pseudorandom, and will NOT

be

>>>>>> all ones or

>>>>>> all zeroes!

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Since the data in RAM isn't worth a damn after a restart, there's no

>>>>>>> reason to keep the RAM alive.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It's not really a question of "alive" or "dead" (some misleading

>>>>>> terminology

>>>>>> here).

>>>>>> Well, ok, technically, if you want to use the term "dead" here, that

>>>>>> would only apply when power is removed from the RAM chip. We can

>>>>>> agree that then, and then only, is it dead.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Either that or nothing happens to RAM when the

>>>>>>> electricity is cut, it remains in the last-used state, which means

that

>>>>>>> even

>>>>>>

>>>>>> No, it does NOT remain in the last used state (the contents or data

in

>>>>>> the RAM cells, I mean). But that IS true for ROM, obviously!

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> if you shut down, the data is retained. It's one or the other.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On an AT board, pushing the reset button momentarily cuts the power

>>>>>>> supply

>>>>>>> to the entire system (except that part that's kept alive by the CMOS

>>>>>>> battery.) AFAICT, a restart accomplishes the same thing via

>>>>>>> electronic

>>>>>>> means.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> With ATX boards, parts of the system are kept alive, to support

>>>>>>> things

>>>>>>> like Wake-On LAN. But only those parts that are necessary to keep

alive

>>>>>>> while

>>>> the

>>>>>>> machine is "turned off." RAM isn't one of those components.

Resetting

>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>> restarting does the same thing to all the rest of the components as

>>>>>>> it

>>>>>>> does in an AT board -- momentarily cuts power to those components to

>>>>>>> reset them.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> But maybe I'm totally wrong, I don't know. Again, if you can find a

>>>>>>> reputable resource that describes all these functions in technical

>>>>>>> detail,

>>>>>>> something that takes you through exactly what happens at every step

>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>> startup, shutdown, manual reset and programmatic reset, I'd be very

>>>>>>> interested. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but if so, I want the real

>>>>>>> story,

>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>> anecdotal evidence or simplistic articles that don't walk me through

>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>> processes. I thought I saw a link in this thread to an article that

>>>>>>> claimed the same thing you do, but I can't find it now. I did take a

>>>>>>> quick glance at it, but it didn't offer any more explanation than

you

>>>>>>> have, nor did I recognize it as an established technical resource.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I'd do it myself, but I have a lot on my plate for the next few

>>>>>>> weeks.

>>>>>>> Maybe PCGuide explains it. But I figure since you made the claim,

and

>>>>>>> perhaps have more free time than I do, you'd be willing to find the

>>>>>>> resources and settle it once and for all (at least for us.) If you

don't

>>>>>>> want to, that's fine, but I thought you might be willing. I won't be

>>>>>>> here for a good ten days,

>>>>>>> anyway, and I'll probably have no access to the NGs, though that

>>>>>>> isn't

>>>>>>> certain, so there's no hurry, <s>.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> (Tired and yawning as I was when I wrote that previous post last

night,

>>>>>>> at

>>>>>>> midnight, half an hour after I lay down I was wide awake, worrying

>>>>>>> about

>>>> all

>>>>>>> the things I have to do this weekend in preparation for a busy trip

out

>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>> town next week. Go figure.)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:u6XQyNi5HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>> I'm usually up a bit late - I'm kinda a nite owl. :-)

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>>>> What makes you say that? I'm serious. I want a reputable cite that

>>>>>>>>> explains it all in gory detail. ATX boards are "kept alive" unless

>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>> pull the plug or turn off the PWS using a switch (which only some

>>>>>>>>> have.)

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I don't know anything about ATX boards, per se. Maybe ATX boards

>>>>>>>> never remove power from the RAM when you turn the computer off, but

>>>>>>>> that sure

>>>>>>>> seems unlikely, as there's not much point.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> What about that

>>>>>>>>> case? According to your logic, even turning the computer off might

>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>> flush RAM.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Well, "flush" RAM is not the correct terminology here. Let me

>>>>>>>> explain:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Only by turning the computer off will the entire RAM memory

contents

>>>>>>>> (with some parts still potentially containing some code or data)

>>>>>>>> effectively destroyed.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> So when you turn the computer back on again, the contents of all

the

>>>>>>>> RAM will be random to begin with. That can't happen with a

reboot.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it is something to take for granted that a reboot

>>>>>>>>> doesn't

>>>>>>>>> clear RAM, since it resets everything else?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I think some of this misunderstanding is due to my misuse of the

>>>>>>>> term

>>>>>>>> "clear

>>>>>>>> RAM" (if i said that term) here, as I explained above.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> What use is the data contained

>>>>>>>>> therein? What reason would the designers have for maintaining that

>>>>>>>>> data through a reboot?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> But rebooting does not wipe out the contents of all the RAM.

It's

>>>>>>>> not a question of "trying to maintain the data" - you're missing my

>>>>>>>> point. It's

>>>>>>>> rather that some of it is still left there.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't the juice be momentarily cut from RAM like it

>>>>>>>>> is for nearly everything else. Or does a reboot even do that at

>>>>>>>>> all,

>>>>>>>>> for

>>>>>> any

>>>>>>>>> component?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> AFAIK, rebooting does NOT remove the *power* from all the RAM

chips.

>>>>>>>> And

>>>>>>>> if you don't remove the power from the RAM, some of its data

>>>>>>>> contents

>>>>>>>> will still remain, (unless you have some program that deliberately

>>>>>>>> writes data

>>>>>>>> into all the cells, which would be a separate utility (like to

check

>>>>>>>> out the

>>>>>>>> RAM).

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Yes I want a cite or three. I want to learn more about it.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:uDkCodh5HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>> Cite? For what? The fact that the only way RAM memory is

>>>>>>>>>> completely cleared out is to turn off the computer? Surely

>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>> jest!

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> Again... Cite? Make it a good one.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>> news:u3TLi1f5HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ee6leLG5HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to clarify (and to correct my own mistakes in

terminology):

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are three ways to restart a Windows 98 or 95 computer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Shutdown, and then restart the machine manually.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a cold boot.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Restart or Reboot, which does the same as above except you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to press any button to restart.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> This one is called a "warm boot" by "Windows 98 Secrets"

>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Livingston

>>>>>>>>>>>>> &

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straub), p.297... "This option works just like Shut Down does,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> but

>>>> it

>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't require that you press Ctrl-Alt-Delete to restart

Windows

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 98. It

>>>>>>>>>>>>> restarts Windows 98 with a warm boot."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this does reach back to BIOS & post, I tend to agree

with

>>>>>>>>>>>>> you that

>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is no different from a cold boot.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> But you're wrong, because it does NOT remove any resident code

>>>>>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>>>>> data left

>>>>>>>>>>>> in memory that could be problematic (in some instances). So

>>>>>>>>>>>> it

>> is

>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT "identical", per se, by definition.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, it is also not identical because the internal

>>>>>>>>>>>> hardware

>>>>>>>>>>>> (electronics) has not been powered off and then back on again,

>>>>>>>>>>>> which could have some relevance for both hardware and software

>>>>>>>>>>>> (low level) issues, in

>>>>>>>>>>>> some instances).

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> That all being said, the practical results are so similar in

>>>>>>>>>>>> MOST

>>>>>>>>>>>> cases

>>>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>>> it probably don't matter too much.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Q.E.D.

August 25, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

It reminds me of when I worked at Target and we used LRT's and sometimes the

machine needed a full cold reboot rather than just a warm reboot. If I

remember correctly, the warm reboot was just a reset as compared to the cold

reboot which was a shutdown, wait a little bit and then restart the LRT.

Some of the problems with the LRT's could only be solved with a cold reboot.

I think now Target already has a sucessor that they use to this technology

but interesting to me just the same. I had no idea that it was relevant with

plain old computers as well.

"Bill in Co." wrote:

> It IS different, because it doesn't require TWO warm reboots. Just one

> cold reboot.

>

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> > Huh? Turning off the machine then back on isn't any different than a

> reboot.

> > When you delete ShellIconCache, it isn't rebuilt until the second shut

> down

> > or reboot, whichever you choose, no matter how you get it to that point.

> >

> > --

> > Gary S. Terhune

> > MS-MVP Shell/User

> > http://www.grystmill.com

> >

> > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> > news:u1p9cTE5HHA.5796@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> >> lb wrote:

> >>> On Aug 21, 3:19 pm, H...@invalid.com wrote:

> >>>> This is Win98se

> >>>> For some reason there is some icon confusion going on. For example, I

> >>>> have a program called "Hosts Toggle" (to turn on and off the hosts

> >>>> file). Right now, all files with the PDF extension have the icon from

> >>>> "Hosts Toggle". Text files (.txt) have an icon from another program

> >>>> instead of the notepad icon.

> >>>>

> >>>> The next time I reboot, the icons will be different and some other

> >>>> extension will have the wrong icon, for example last night all the

> >>>> .jpg files had an icon from another folder on my desktop.

> >>>>

> >>>> Everything else is working fine. Why is this happeningt and how do I

> >>>> fix it?

> >>>>

> >>>> Thanks

> >>>> HN

> >>>

> >>> If you have TweakUI, you can go to the repair tab and repair the

> >>> icons.

> >>>

> >>> Your shelliconcache file may be too small or damaged. You can delete

> >>> it and windows will make a new one on the 2nd boot.

> >>

> >> Or just turn off the computer, and then turn it on a few seconds later,

> >> and

> >> you won't have to reboot twice - or thrice (possibly).

> >>

> >>> You can increase the size with programs such as Cacheman or X Setup.

> >>> Both of these have older free versions. Post if you do not have any

> >>> of these.

> >>>

> >>> Another thing is that if you are using a desktop shortcut to rapidly

> >>> shutdown windows, stop using it as it prevents your shelliconcache

> >>> from being rewritten properly.

> >>

> >> Not for me it doesn't (and hasn't). I've had a desktop shortcut for

> >> shutdown for years. (as for "rapidly", who knows. LOL).

>

August 25, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

On Aug 25, 9:28 am, Dan <D...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> It reminds me of when I worked at Target and we used LRT's and sometimes the

> machine needed a full cold reboot rather than just a warm reboot. If I

> remember correctly, the warm reboot was just a reset as compared to the cold

> reboot which was a shutdown, wait a little bit and then restart the LRT.

> Some of the problems with the LRT's could only be solved with a cold reboot.

> I think now Target already has a sucessor that they use to this technology

> but interesting to me just the same. I had no idea that it was relevant with

> plain old computers as well.

>

> "Bill in Co." wrote:

> > It IS different, because it doesn't require TWO warm reboots. Just one

> > cold reboot.

>

> > Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> > > Huh? Turning off the machine then back on isn't any different than a

> > reboot.

> > > When you delete ShellIconCache, it isn't rebuilt until the second shut

> > down

> > > or reboot, whichever you choose, no matter how you get it to that point.

>

> > > --

> > > Gary S. Terhune

> > > MS-MVP Shell/User

> > >http://www.grystmill.com

>

> > > "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> > >news:u1p9cTE5HHA.5796@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> > >> lb wrote:

> > >>> On Aug 21, 3:19 pm, H...@invalid.com wrote:

> > >>>> This is Win98se

> > >>>> For some reason there is some icon confusion going on. For example, I

> > >>>> have a program called "Hosts Toggle" (to turn on and off the hosts

> > >>>> file). Right now, all files with the PDF extension have the icon from

> > >>>> "Hosts Toggle". Text files (.txt) have an icon from another program

> > >>>> instead of the notepad icon.

>

> > >>>> The next time I reboot, the icons will be different and some other

> > >>>> extension will have the wrong icon, for example last night all the

> > >>>> .jpg files had an icon from another folder on my desktop.

>

> > >>>> Everything else is working fine. Why is this happeningt and how do I

> > >>>> fix it?

>

> > >>>> Thanks

> > >>>> HN

>

> > >>> If you have TweakUI, you can go to the repair tab and repair the

> > >>> icons.

>

> > >>> Your shelliconcache file may be too small or damaged. You can delete

> > >>> it and windows will make a new one on the 2nd boot.

>

> > >> Or just turn off the computer, and then turn it on a few seconds later,

> > >> and

> > >> you won't have to reboot twice - or thrice (possibly).

>

> > >>> You can increase the size with programs such as Cacheman or X Setup.

> > >>> Both of these have older free versions. Post if you do not have any

> > >>> of these.

>

> > >>> Another thing is that if you are using a desktop shortcut to rapidly

> > >>> shutdown windows, stop using it as it prevents your shelliconcache

> > >>> from being rewritten properly.

>

> > >> Not for me it doesn't (and hasn't). I've had a desktop shortcut for

> > >> shutdown for years. (as for "rapidly", who knows. LOL).- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

I wonder if the original poster ever got their problem fixed!

August 25, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

Well, if the original poster did not get the original problem fixed then I

think it would make sense to start a new thread since this thread is really

long.

"lb" wrote:

> On Aug 25, 9:28 am, Dan <D...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> > It reminds me of when I worked at Target and we used LRT's and sometimes the

> > machine needed a full cold reboot rather than just a warm reboot. If I

> > remember correctly, the warm reboot was just a reset as compared to the cold

> > reboot which was a shutdown, wait a little bit and then restart the LRT.

> > Some of the problems with the LRT's could only be solved with a cold reboot.

> > I think now Target already has a sucessor that they use to this technology

> > but interesting to me just the same. I had no idea that it was relevant with

> > plain old computers as well.

> >

> > "Bill in Co." wrote:

> > > It IS different, because it doesn't require TWO warm reboots. Just one

> > > cold reboot.

> >

> > > Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> > > > Huh? Turning off the machine then back on isn't any different than a

> > > reboot.

> > > > When you delete ShellIconCache, it isn't rebuilt until the second shut

> > > down

> > > > or reboot, whichever you choose, no matter how you get it to that point.

> >

> > > > --

> > > > Gary S. Terhune

> > > > MS-MVP Shell/User

> > > >http://www.grystmill.com

> >

> > > > "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> > > >news:u1p9cTE5HHA.5796@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> > > >> lb wrote:

> > > >>> On Aug 21, 3:19 pm, H...@invalid.com wrote:

> > > >>>> This is Win98se

> > > >>>> For some reason there is some icon confusion going on. For example, I

> > > >>>> have a program called "Hosts Toggle" (to turn on and off the hosts

> > > >>>> file). Right now, all files with the PDF extension have the icon from

> > > >>>> "Hosts Toggle". Text files (.txt) have an icon from another program

> > > >>>> instead of the notepad icon.

> >

> > > >>>> The next time I reboot, the icons will be different and some other

> > > >>>> extension will have the wrong icon, for example last night all the

> > > >>>> .jpg files had an icon from another folder on my desktop.

> >

> > > >>>> Everything else is working fine. Why is this happeningt and how do I

> > > >>>> fix it?

> >

> > > >>>> Thanks

> > > >>>> HN

> >

> > > >>> If you have TweakUI, you can go to the repair tab and repair the

> > > >>> icons.

> >

> > > >>> Your shelliconcache file may be too small or damaged. You can delete

> > > >>> it and windows will make a new one on the 2nd boot.

> >

> > > >> Or just turn off the computer, and then turn it on a few seconds later,

> > > >> and

> > > >> you won't have to reboot twice - or thrice (possibly).

> >

> > > >>> You can increase the size with programs such as Cacheman or X Setup.

> > > >>> Both of these have older free versions. Post if you do not have any

> > > >>> of these.

> >

> > > >>> Another thing is that if you are using a desktop shortcut to rapidly

> > > >>> shutdown windows, stop using it as it prevents your shelliconcache

> > > >>> from being rewritten properly.

> >

> > > >> Not for me it doesn't (and hasn't). I've had a desktop shortcut for

> > > >> shutdown for years. (as for "rapidly", who knows. LOL).- Hide quoted text -

> >

> > - Show quoted text -

>

> I wonder if the original poster ever got their problem fixed!

>

August 25, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

I accept your description of what RAM does, but if resetting the CPU is all

the reset button does, then how come the video and sound (and every other

device I can think of that connects to the motherboard, including onboard

video, RAM and LPT port) reset also?

Anyway, I suppose the test of your original contention that usable data

remains in RAM after a rest would be to see if that's the case. Use a

floppy-based debug and reset the machine from within Windows, both using

Shutdown>Restart and a hard reset.

Anyway, when I get the time, I'll research and see if I can't find a

step-by-step description of what happens.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:e3$9xhr5HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> news:OLaVzxp5HHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>> What makes the data random?

>>>

>>> The question is a bit backwards. Why wouldn't it be random? More on

>>> that below.

>>>

>>>> The loss of a "table of contents"? How does

>>>> removing power randomize the data if it doesn't change the bits?

>>>

>>> Where did THAT come from? There are no "bits", per se, when the

>>> power

>>> is off. It has nothing to do with a table of contents. Memory cells

> can

>>> store a logic 1 or a logic 0, but only when they have power going to

> them.

>>> If you remove the power, the data is gone. By reapplying power, the

>>> cells come up in some pseudorandom state, since they haven't had

>>> anything

>>> written into their cells yet.

>>

>> OK, memory cells are either 0 or 1.

>

> ONLY when power is applied to the chip. Then, and then only.

>

>> That their unpowered sate is random

>

> No, not their unpowered state. In their "repowered up" state. There

> is

> a crucial distinction here. (In the unpowered state the whole statement

> is meaningless).

>

>> doesn't make sense to me, nor do I see why restoring power would make

>> them

>> randomly be 0's or 1's, but OK. That's one of the things I'd like to see

> in

>> an authoratative article.

>

> Well, why don't you go verify it yourself? By a few static RAM chips,

> apply power, go look at their data outputs as you apply consecutive

> addresses for each cell. Then remove power (the requisite power supply

> voltage(s) to the IC so it can operate), then reapply power, and repeat

> the

> experiment. Small static CMOS RAM chips aren't that expensive (ones

> you

> can use for these experiments like in school labs).

>

> OR

>

> Use debug to examine a bunch of random memory locations for RAM in your

> computer and print the screen for this. Then turn off the computer,

> wait

> a few seconds, and then turn it back on it again, and go check out those

> same addresses again (and do this for a significant number of completely

> scattered RAM address banks).

>

>>>> If it does change the bits, why not to all ones or all zeros, rather

> than

>>>> random?

>>>

>>> The question is backwards. Why would they come up as all ones or all

>>> zeroes? They're not all identical! Just like snowflakes, there are

>>> individual differences. Just like white noise consists of a mix of

>>> random frequencies. (A whole slew of them, actually).

>>

>> I don't buy that, but if you can show me some documentation... Memory

> cells

>> are randomly positive or negative in charge absent power? I don't know a

> lot

>> about the subject, but it's counter intuitive.

>

> See above (and more below).

>

>>>> Resetting (whether manually or programmatically) certainly appears to

>>>> interrupt the power to the video card, the sound card, the hard

> drives...

>>>> Why not to the RAM?

>>>

>>> The only way to interrupt the power to anything is to *remove* the

>>> power,

>>> which is done by turning the computer or appliance off. And the power

>>> supply voltage goes to zero.

>>

>> And I say that when you do a reset, whether by pushing the reset button

>> or

>> via an electronic signal, the power to the motherboard (in AT boards) IS

>> momentarily cut, disrupting the power between the PWS and the mobo.

>

> The only way to remove power (the power supply voltages) from all the IC's

> on your motherboard and cards is to turn off the power (unless you have a

> switch that actually turns off its power and kills it).

>

> Pushing a reset switch is (or used to be) an action that toggles or

> switches

> the reset line pin on the microprocessor. Microprocessors have a

> hardware

> reset pin, which, when momentarily grounded, resets the microprocessor IC,

> and sends it into its microcoded reset routine, by its sending out some

> predefined addresses to the address bus).

>

>> Makes a

>> lot more sense to me than your contention. If not, please explain how the

>> devices ARE reset. Some complicated signal sent to each one to reset,

> while

>> the mobo remains alive? Again, I'd like to see authoritative

> documentation,

>> both for AT and ATX boards, though we can stick to AT if you wish.

>>

>> --

>> Gary S. Terhune

>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>

>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:ueTGTqo5HHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Well, I've worked with electronics (and am an EE) all these years, as

>>>>> you

>>>>> probably know, so at least that part just seems so evident to me

> (probably

>>>>> from doing this kinda stuff in the lab for sooo many years, lol).

>>>>>

>>>>> I used the term pseudorandom, as I'm pretty sure it (the data contents

>>>>> of

>>>>> the RAM) is not completely statistically random, that's all.

>>>>>

>>>>> When you reboot your computer, you are NOT removing power from the RAM

>>>>> chip, like you are when you turn it off. And THAT is a critical

>>>>> difference (in terms of the contents of the RAM cells).

>>>>>

>>>>> Whether that becomes, or can become, problematic, in some cases, is a

>>>>> separate issue. :-).

>>>>>

>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>> OK, I don't know. But what makes the data in RAM change from

>>>>>> organized

> to

>>>>>> pseudo-random? Regardless, what I believe is that this behavior isn't

>>>>>> changed by shutting down and then starting, as opposed to resetting.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:uCaQjSo5HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>>> I don't buy this "data remains in RAM" or "some of the data remains

>>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>> RAM" or even that it becomes random. Here's the way I look at it,

> based

>>>>>>>> upon observation and deductive logic. RAM is kept alive by

> electricity.

>>>>>>>> No electricity, the ones turn to zeros (or vice versa, but it isn't

>>>>>>>> random.)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Let me get this straight. You think that when you turn the

> computer

>>>>>>> back

>>>>>>> on, the RAM contents are either all ones or all zeros? No way,

>>>>>>> Jose!

>>>>>>> Go take a peek sometime using debug.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If you take a RAM IC, and power it up (like on a breadboard), the

>>>>>>> contents of its memory locations will be pseudorandom, and will NOT

> be

>>>>>>> all ones or

>>>>>>> all zeroes!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Since the data in RAM isn't worth a damn after a restart, there's

>>>>>>>> no

>>>>>>>> reason to keep the RAM alive.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It's not really a question of "alive" or "dead" (some misleading

>>>>>>> terminology

>>>>>>> here).

>>>>>>> Well, ok, technically, if you want to use the term "dead" here, that

>>>>>>> would only apply when power is removed from the RAM chip. We can

>>>>>>> agree that then, and then only, is it dead.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Either that or nothing happens to RAM when the

>>>>>>>> electricity is cut, it remains in the last-used state, which means

> that

>>>>>>>> even

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> No, it does NOT remain in the last used state (the contents or data

> in

>>>>>>> the RAM cells, I mean). But that IS true for ROM, obviously!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> if you shut down, the data is retained. It's one or the other.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On an AT board, pushing the reset button momentarily cuts the power

>>>>>>>> supply

>>>>>>>> to the entire system (except that part that's kept alive by the

>>>>>>>> CMOS

>>>>>>>> battery.) AFAICT, a restart accomplishes the same thing via

>>>>>>>> electronic

>>>>>>>> means.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> With ATX boards, parts of the system are kept alive, to support

>>>>>>>> things

>>>>>>>> like Wake-On LAN. But only those parts that are necessary to keep

> alive

>>>>>>>> while

>>>>> the

>>>>>>>> machine is "turned off." RAM isn't one of those components.

> Resetting

>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>> restarting does the same thing to all the rest of the components as

>>>>>>>> it

>>>>>>>> does in an AT board -- momentarily cuts power to those components

>>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>> reset them.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> But maybe I'm totally wrong, I don't know. Again, if you can find a

>>>>>>>> reputable resource that describes all these functions in technical

>>>>>>>> detail,

>>>>>>>> something that takes you through exactly what happens at every step

>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>> startup, shutdown, manual reset and programmatic reset, I'd be very

>>>>>>>> interested. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but if so, I want the real

>>>>>>>> story,

>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>> anecdotal evidence or simplistic articles that don't walk me

>>>>>>>> through

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>> processes. I thought I saw a link in this thread to an article that

>>>>>>>> claimed the same thing you do, but I can't find it now. I did take

>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>> quick glance at it, but it didn't offer any more explanation than

> you

>>>>>>>> have, nor did I recognize it as an established technical resource.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I'd do it myself, but I have a lot on my plate for the next few

>>>>>>>> weeks.

>>>>>>>> Maybe PCGuide explains it. But I figure since you made the claim,

> and

>>>>>>>> perhaps have more free time than I do, you'd be willing to find the

>>>>>>>> resources and settle it once and for all (at least for us.) If you

> don't

>>>>>>>> want to, that's fine, but I thought you might be willing. I won't

>>>>>>>> be

>>>>>>>> here for a good ten days,

>>>>>>>> anyway, and I'll probably have no access to the NGs, though that

>>>>>>>> isn't

>>>>>>>> certain, so there's no hurry, <s>.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> (Tired and yawning as I was when I wrote that previous post last

> night,

>>>>>>>> at

>>>>>>>> midnight, half an hour after I lay down I was wide awake, worrying

>>>>>>>> about

>>>>> all

>>>>>>>> the things I have to do this weekend in preparation for a busy trip

> out

>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>> town next week. Go figure.)

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:u6XQyNi5HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>> I'm usually up a bit late - I'm kinda a nite owl. :-)

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> What makes you say that? I'm serious. I want a reputable cite

>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>> explains it all in gory detail. ATX boards are "kept alive"

>>>>>>>>>> unless

>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>> pull the plug or turn off the PWS using a switch (which only some

>>>>>>>>>> have.)

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I don't know anything about ATX boards, per se. Maybe ATX boards

>>>>>>>>> never remove power from the RAM when you turn the computer off,

>>>>>>>>> but

>>>>>>>>> that sure

>>>>>>>>> seems unlikely, as there's not much point.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> What about that

>>>>>>>>>> case? According to your logic, even turning the computer off

>>>>>>>>>> might

>>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>>> flush RAM.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Well, "flush" RAM is not the correct terminology here. Let me

>>>>>>>>> explain:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Only by turning the computer off will the entire RAM memory

> contents

>>>>>>>>> (with some parts still potentially containing some code or data)

>>>>>>>>> effectively destroyed.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> So when you turn the computer back on again, the contents of all

> the

>>>>>>>>> RAM will be random to begin with. That can't happen with a

> reboot.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it is something to take for granted that a

>>>>>>>>>> reboot

>>>>>>>>>> doesn't

>>>>>>>>>> clear RAM, since it resets everything else?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I think some of this misunderstanding is due to my misuse of the

>>>>>>>>> term

>>>>>>>>> "clear

>>>>>>>>> RAM" (if i said that term) here, as I explained above.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> What use is the data contained

>>>>>>>>>> therein? What reason would the designers have for maintaining

>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>> data through a reboot?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> But rebooting does not wipe out the contents of all the RAM.

> It's

>>>>>>>>> not a question of "trying to maintain the data" - you're missing

>>>>>>>>> my

>>>>>>>>> point. It's

>>>>>>>>> rather that some of it is still left there.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't the juice be momentarily cut from RAM like it

>>>>>>>>>> is for nearly everything else. Or does a reboot even do that at

>>>>>>>>>> all,

>>>>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>> any

>>>>>>>>>> component?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, rebooting does NOT remove the *power* from all the RAM

> chips.

>>>>>>>>> And

>>>>>>>>> if you don't remove the power from the RAM, some of its data

>>>>>>>>> contents

>>>>>>>>> will still remain, (unless you have some program that deliberately

>>>>>>>>> writes data

>>>>>>>>> into all the cells, which would be a separate utility (like to

> check

>>>>>>>>> out the

>>>>>>>>> RAM).

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Yes I want a cite or three. I want to learn more about it.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>> news:uDkCodh5HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>> Cite? For what? The fact that the only way RAM memory is

>>>>>>>>>>> completely cleared out is to turn off the computer? Surely

>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>> jest!

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Again... Cite? Make it a good one.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>> news:u3TLi1f5HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ee6leLG5HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to clarify (and to correct my own mistakes in

> terminology):

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are three ways to restart a Windows 98 or 95 computer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Shutdown, and then restart the machine manually.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a cold boot.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Restart or Reboot, which does the same as above except

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to press any button to restart.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This one is called a "warm boot" by "Windows 98 Secrets"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Livingston

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> &

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straub), p.297... "This option works just like Shut Down

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but

>>>>> it

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't require that you press Ctrl-Alt-Delete to restart

> Windows

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 98. It

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restarts Windows 98 with a warm boot."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this does reach back to BIOS & post, I tend to agree

> with

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is no different from a cold boot.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you're wrong, because it does NOT remove any resident code

>>>>>>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>>>>>> data left

>>>>>>>>>>>>> in memory that could be problematic (in some instances). So

>>>>>>>>>>>>> it

>>> is

>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT "identical", per se, by definition.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, it is also not identical because the internal

>>>>>>>>>>>>> hardware

>>>>>>>>>>>>> (electronics) has not been powered off and then back on again,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> which could have some relevance for both hardware and software

>>>>>>>>>>>>> (low level) issues, in

>>>>>>>>>>>>> some instances).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> That all being said, the practical results are so similar in

>>>>>>>>>>>>> MOST

>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases

>>>>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>>>> it probably don't matter too much.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q.E.D.

>

August 25, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> Anyway, I suppose the test of your original contention that usable

> data remains in RAM after a rest would be to see if that's the

> case.

Personally, I have no doubt it does. Or at least used to on old

machines.

Some 25+ years ago I wrote a program (assembler) for Tandy machines

for programmers that were using Basic. I would have liked to just

stick it on a floppy and let purchasers copy it off but I could

not...there were numerous DOSes and some began counting at one, others

zero. My program needed to change itself internally accomodate the

way the DOS counted and to do that I neeeded the DOS to create my

program file on the user's disc by saving it from RAM.

I wrote a mini-DOS and had it on the distribution disc. It booted the

user machine and displayed an option menu so that the user could

select desired program modules. Those selected were written to RAM

(higher than user DOS would use) and the user was instructed to use

Debug and GOTO the RAM execution address of my program after his

machine rebooted. Once he had a DOS disc in the drive I rebooted it,

he did the DEBUG thing and my program then used his DOS to write the

program file on his disc. Convoluted but it worked. Users were a bit

more savvy back then :)

I see no reason why things would have changed on PCs as far as the

contents of memory not being changed by a reset but I don't know. The

POST verifies memory but I don't know *how* the verify is done

now-a-days. Used to be a verify would read, write back what it read

then read again and compare the two reads. If that is the case, it

isn't changing RAM values.

Even though a reset probably leaves RAM alone I don't see what

difference it makes. As I've been telling the Rocky Mountain man. He

seems to be worried about malignant code left in RAM executing after a

reset but I can't figure a *way* for it to execute (other than the

ones I posted elsewhere in this thread). If there is a way, I'd sure

like to know how.

--

dadiOH

____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...

....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from

LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.

Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

August 25, 2007

Re: Icon Confusion

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> I accept your description of what RAM does, but if resetting the CPU is

all

> the reset button does, then how come the video and sound (and every other

> device I can think of that connects to the motherboard, including onboard

> video, RAM and LPT port) reset also?

Actually, resetting the CPU will invoke a software routine to reset the rest

of the devices, because when the CPU reset line is grounded, the internal

microcoded program in the CPU's ROM tells it to send out a sequence of

addresses which then address some memory locations which contain the reset

hardware routines, etc.

> Anyway, I suppose the test of your original contention that usable data

> remains in RAM after a rest would be to see if that's the case. Use a

> floppy-based debug and reset the machine from within Windows, both using

> Shutdown>Restart and a hard reset.

>

> Anyway, when I get the time, I'll research and see if I can't find a

> step-by-step description of what happens.

>

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

>

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:e3$9xhr5HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>> news:OLaVzxp5HHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>> What makes the data random?

>>>>

>>>> The question is a bit backwards. Why wouldn't it be random? More

on

>>>> that below.

>>>>

>>>>> The loss of a "table of contents"? How does

>>>>> removing power randomize the data if it doesn't change the bits?

>>>>

>>>> Where did THAT come from? There are no "bits", per se, when the

>>>> power

>>>> is off. It has nothing to do with a table of contents. Memory cells

can

>>>> store a logic 1 or a logic 0, but only when they have power going to

them.

>>>> If you remove the power, the data is gone. By reapplying power, the

>>>> cells come up in some pseudorandom state, since they haven't had

>>>> anything

>>>> written into their cells yet.

>>>

>>> OK, memory cells are either 0 or 1.

>>

>> ONLY when power is applied to the chip. Then, and then only.

>>

>>> That their unpowered sate is random

>>

>> No, not their unpowered state. In their "repowered up" state. There

>> is

>> a crucial distinction here. (In the unpowered state the whole

statement

>> is meaningless).

>>

>>> doesn't make sense to me, nor do I see why restoring power would make

>>> them

>>> randomly be 0's or 1's, but OK. That's one of the things I'd like to see

in

>>> an authoratative article.

>>

>> Well, why don't you go verify it yourself? By a few static RAM chips,

>> apply power, go look at their data outputs as you apply consecutive

>> addresses for each cell. Then remove power (the requisite power supply

>> voltage(s) to the IC so it can operate), then reapply power, and repeat

>> the

>> experiment. Small static CMOS RAM chips aren't that expensive (ones

>> you

>> can use for these experiments like in school labs).

>>

>> OR

>>

>> Use debug to examine a bunch of random memory locations for RAM in your

>> computer and print the screen for this. Then turn off the computer,

>> wait

>> a few seconds, and then turn it back on it again, and go check out those

>> same addresses again (and do this for a significant number of completely

>> scattered RAM address banks).

>>

>>>>> If it does change the bits, why not to all ones or all zeros, rather

than

>>>>> random?

>>>>

>>>> The question is backwards. Why would they come up as all ones or all

>>>> zeroes? They're not all identical! Just like snowflakes, there

are

>>>> individual differences. Just like white noise consists of a mix of

>>>> random frequencies. (A whole slew of them, actually).

>>>

>>> I don't buy that, but if you can show me some documentation... Memory

cells

>>> are randomly positive or negative in charge absent power? I don't know a

lot

>>> about the subject, but it's counter intuitive.

>>

>> See above (and more below).

>>

>>>>> Resetting (whether manually or programmatically) certainly appears to

>>>>> interrupt the power to the video card, the sound card, the hard

drives...

>>>>> Why not to the RAM?

>>>>

>>>> The only way to interrupt the power to anything is to *remove* the

>>>> power,

>>>> which is done by turning the computer or appliance off. And the

power

>>>> supply voltage goes to zero.

>>>

>>> And I say that when you do a reset, whether by pushing the reset button

>>> or

>>> via an electronic signal, the power to the motherboard (in AT boards) IS

>>> momentarily cut, disrupting the power between the PWS and the mobo.

>>

>> The only way to remove power (the power supply voltages) from all the

IC's

>> on your motherboard and cards is to turn off the power (unless you have a

>> switch that actually turns off its power and kills it).

>>

>> Pushing a reset switch is (or used to be) an action that toggles or

>> switches

>> the reset line pin on the microprocessor. Microprocessors have a

>> hardware

>> reset pin, which, when momentarily grounded, resets the microprocessor

IC,

>> and sends it into its microcoded reset routine, by its sending out some

>> predefined addresses to the address bus).

>>

>>> Makes a

>>> lot more sense to me than your contention. If not, please explain how

the

>>> devices ARE reset. Some complicated signal sent to each one to reset,

while

>>> the mobo remains alive? Again, I'd like to see authoritative

documentation,

>>> both for AT and ATX boards, though we can stick to AT if you wish.

>>>

>>> --

>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>

>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:ueTGTqo5HHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> Well, I've worked with electronics (and am an EE) all these years, as

>>>>>> you

>>>>>> probably know, so at least that part just seems so evident to me

>>>>>> (probably from doing this kinda stuff in the lab for sooo many years,

>>>>>> lol).

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I used the term pseudorandom, as I'm pretty sure it (the data

contents

>>>>>> of

>>>>>> the RAM) is not completely statistically random, that's all.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> When you reboot your computer, you are NOT removing power from the

RAM

>>>>>> chip, like you are when you turn it off. And THAT is a critical

>>>>>> difference (in terms of the contents of the RAM cells).

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Whether that becomes, or can become, problematic, in some cases, is a

>>>>>> separate issue. :-).

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>> OK, I don't know. But what makes the data in RAM change from

>>>>>>> organized

>> to

>>>>>>> pseudo-random? Regardless, what I believe is that this behavior

isn't

>>>>>>> changed by shutting down and then starting, as opposed to resetting.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User