"Unhandled Exception" errors in Safari 3.2.3
Nick Naym
empty webpages whose urls contain �Error.aspx?M=HttpUnhandledException.� But
this only happens in Safari (v. 3.2.3) -- the problem doesn�t occur with
Opera or Firefox.
Any ideas/suggestions?
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.7)
Mike Rosenberg
> Links to different articles on a particular website routinely bring me to
> empty webpages whose urls contain "Error.aspx?M=HttpUnhandledException." But
> this only happens in Safari (v. 3.2.3) -- the problem doesn't occur with
> Opera or Firefox.
>
>
> Any ideas/suggestions?
Well, if you'd tell us the web site, someone possibly could tell you if
the problem occurs for other users of Safari 3.2.3, in which case you'd
know simply not to use Safari for that site.
--
My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvB98fgse-s>
Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi>
Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
Nick Naym
Rosenberg at mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 9/3/09 8:52 AM:
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Links to different articles on a particular website routinely bring me to
>> empty webpages whose urls contain "Error.aspx?M=HttpUnhandledException." But
>> this only happens in Safari (v. 3.2.3) -- the problem doesn't occur with
>> Opera or Firefox.
>>
>>
>> Any ideas/suggestions?
>
> Well, if you'd tell us the web site, someone possibly could tell you if
> the problem occurs for other users of Safari 3.2.3, in which case you'd
> know simply not to use Safari for that site.
Here is one example:
This link (which was included in an email):
http://e2.monster.com/emessageirs/servlet/IRSL?v=4&l=11&r=14294&m=719150&e=2
resolves to this url:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/lk48u8
However, in Safari, both the link and the url take me to an empty page whose
url is some variant of:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/m5rqbw
(I say "some variant" because it changes slightly each time.)
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <C6C55AA5.44DD0%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>):
> In article 1j5glts.bwbu8m1vxw7cN%mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com, Mike
> Rosenberg at mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 9/3/09 8:52 AM:
>
>> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Links to different articles on a particular website routinely bring me to
>>> empty webpages whose urls contain "Error.aspx?M=HttpUnhandledException."
>>> But
>>> this only happens in Safari (v. 3.2.3) -- the problem doesn't occur with
>>> Opera or Firefox.
>>>
>>>
>>> Any ideas/suggestions?
>>
>> Well, if you'd tell us the web site, someone possibly could tell you if
>> the problem occurs for other users of Safari 3.2.3, in which case you'd
>> know simply not to use Safari for that site.
>
> Here is one example:
>
> This link (which was included in an email):
>
> http://e2.monster.com/emessageirs/servlet/IRSL?v=4&l=11&r=14294&m=719150&e=2
I have no problems whatsoever with that page and Safari 4. The solution to
your problem may be to simply use Safari 4.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Mike Rosenberg
> > http://e2.monster.com/emessageirs/servlet/IRSL?v=4&l=11&r=14294&m=719150&e=2
>
> I have no problems whatsoever with that page and Safari 4. The solution to
> your problem may be to simply use Safari 4.
No problem here, either, also using Safari 4. You gotta figure Nick will
upgrade to that version in a few months after discussing it at length
here the interim.
Mike Rosenberg
> > I have no problems whatsoever with that page and Safari 4. The solution to
> > your problem may be to simply use Safari 4.
>
> No problem here, either, also using Safari 4. You gotta figure Nick will
> upgrade to that version in a few months after discussing it at length
> here the interim.
I WILL check the URL out from Safari 3.x as soon as I come across
another Mac that's out-of-date.
Nick Naym
Rosenberg at mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 9/3/09 12:52 PM:
> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>>> http://e2.monster.com/emessageirs/servlet/IRSL?v=4&l=11&r=14294&m=719150&e=2
>>
>> I have no problems whatsoever with that page and Safari 4. The solution to
>> your problem may be to simply use Safari 4.
>
> No problem here, either, also using Safari 4. You gotta figure Nick will
> upgrade to that version in a few months after discussing it at length
> here the interim.
Cute. How about:
> Subject: Re: Finder Problem?
> Date: Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:48 PM
> From: Mike Rosenberg <mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
> ...
> ...
> ... I understand not wanting to upgrade to Safari 4.x,
to which you added:
> but you
> also missed the Safari 3.2.3 update. ...I think it behooves you to at least
> install that update.
which I did.
Nick Naym
Rosenberg at mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 9/3/09 12:57 PM:
> Mike Rosenberg <mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
>
>>> I have no problems whatsoever with that page and Safari 4. The solution to
>>> your problem may be to simply use Safari 4.
>>
>> No problem here, either, also using Safari 4. You gotta figure Nick will
>> upgrade to that version in a few months after discussing it at length
>> here the interim.
>
> I WILL check the URL out from Safari 3.x as soon as I come across
> another Mac that's out-of-date.
Please do. I'm still experiencing performance problems, and would like to
get an idea whether it's my system, Safari,...whatever. I've held off on
additional updates for fear that whatever is plaguing my machine will only
be aggravated by doing so.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <C6C570FD.44DE4%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>):
> In article 1j5gx18.5wid9714a7hs0N%mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com, Mike
> Rosenberg at mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 9/3/09 12:52 PM:
>
>> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://e2.monster.com/emessageirs/servlet/IRSL?v=4&l=11&r=14294&m=719150&e
>>>> =2
>>>
>>> I have no problems whatsoever with that page and Safari 4. The solution to
>>> your problem may be to simply use Safari 4.
>>
>> No problem here, either, also using Safari 4. You gotta figure Nick will
>> upgrade to that version in a few months after discussing it at length
>> here the interim.
>
> Cute. How about:
>
>> Subject: Re: Finder Problem?
>> Date: Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:48 PM
>> From: Mike Rosenberg <mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>
>> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
>> ...
>> ...
>> ... I understand not wanting to upgrade to Safari 4.x,
I can say that Safari 4 definitely works with that page. You have said that
Safari 3 definitely does not. This means that:
1 there is something on that page that doesn't work with Safari 3 but does
with Safari 4, so if you update your problem will go away.
or
2 there is something on your system which is preventing you from using Safari
3, but not Opera or Firefox, to view that page.
I suspect (1). It is easy to test this: install Safari 4. If Safari 4 works,
then you're golden. If it doesn't, you have just proved that the problem is
local to your machine and you can then take steps to determine what it is,
because it will be on _your_ system. Either way, installing Safari 4 will
give you information you don't have now. In times past there may/may not have
been a reason to not upgrade. Right now, you have a reason.
Upgrade or not, it's up to you, but as it works here there's very little more
that can be done at this end.
>
> to which you added:
>
>> but you
>> also missed the Safari 3.2.3 update. ...I think it behooves you to at least
>> install that update.
>
> which I did.
And Safari 3.2.3 manifestly has a problem. You really should think about
going to Safari 4, but it's up to you.
nospam
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, if you'd tell us the web site, someone possibly could tell you if
> > the problem occurs for other users of Safari 3.2.3, in which case you'd
> > know simply not to use Safari for that site.
>
> Here is one example:
>
> This link (which was included in an email):
>
> http://e2.monster.com/emessageirs/servlet/IRSL?v=4&l=11&r=14294&m=719150&e=2
>
> resolves to this url:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/lk48u8
>
> However, in Safari, both the link and the url take me to an empty page whose
> url is some variant of:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/m5rqbw
>
> (I say "some variant" because it changes slightly each time.)
for the first link (and the tinyurl one below it) i get a page on job
search and recruitment cycles, not a blank page, without any errors
using safari 3.2.3, os x 10.5.7.
your last link is a monster.com error page, and without any unhandled
exception error either.
Mike Rosenberg
> > I WILL check the URL out from Safari 3.x as soon as I come across
> > another Mac that's out-of-date.
>
> Please do. I'm still experiencing performance problems, and would like to
> get an idea whether it's my system, Safari,...whatever. I've held off on
> additional updates for fear that whatever is plaguing my machine will only
> be aggravated by doing so.
I tested it from Safari 3.2.3 and it works fine. Does it work okay if
you access it from another user account?
Mike Rosenberg
> > No problem here, either, also using Safari 4. You gotta figure Nick will
> > upgrade to that version in a few months after discussing it at length
> > here the interim.
>
> Cute. How about:
>
> > Subject: Re: Finder Problem?
> > Date: Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:48 PM
> > From: Mike Rosenberg <mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>
> > Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
> > ...
> > ...
> > ... I understand not wanting to upgrade to Safari 4.x,
>
> to which you added:
>
> > but you
> > also missed the Safari 3.2.3 update. ...I think it behooves you to at least
> > install that update.
>
> which I did.
Yes, I did say that on July 19. It's now about six weeks later, and
Safari is up to version 4.0.3.
Mike Rosenberg
> And Safari 3.2.3 manifestly has a problem. You really should think about
> going to Safari 4, but it's up to you.
The plot thickens. That URL worked fine from another Mac running 3.2.3.
Nick Naym
Rosenberg at mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 9/3/09 4:26 PM:
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I WILL check the URL out from Safari 3.x as soon as I come across
>>> another Mac that's out-of-date.
>>
>> Please do. I'm still experiencing performance problems, and would like to
>> get an idea whether it's my system, Safari,...whatever. I've held off on
>> additional updates for fear that whatever is plaguing my machine will only
>> be aggravated by doing so.
>
> I tested it from Safari 3.2.3 and it works fine. Does it work okay if
> you access it from another user account?
I just did, and, yes, it does.
Since this suggests (says outright?) that the problem is specific to my
account (the original admin account that was created when I bought the
iMac), how do you suggest I proceed to identify (and eliminate) the cause?
Mike Rosenberg
> > I tested it from Safari 3.2.3 and it works fine. Does it work okay if
> > you access it from another user account?
>
> I just did, and, yes, it does.
>
> Since this suggests (says outright?) that the problem is specific to my
> account (the original admin account that was created when I bought the
> iMac), how do you suggest I proceed to identify (and eliminate) the cause?
Something one should always try if a site doesn't load properly is to
clear your browser cache.
Nick Naym
Rosenberg at mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 9/3/09 6:56 PM:
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I tested it from Safari 3.2.3 and it works fine. Does it work okay if
>>> you access it from another user account?
>>
>> I just did, and, yes, it does.
>>
>> Since this suggests (says outright?) that the problem is specific to my
>> account (the original admin account that was created when I bought the
>> iMac), how do you suggest I proceed to identify (and eliminate) the cause?
>
> Something one should always try if a site doesn't load properly is to
> clear your browser cache.
Besides reducing it by about 10.5 MB, it didn't help.
Mike Rosenberg
> > Something one should always try if a site doesn't load properly is to
> > clear your browser cache.
>
> Besides reducing it by about 10.5 MB, it didn't help.
You can try to Reset Safari (from the Safari menu), selecting items one
at a time, starting with the items you're most willing to discard.
Nick Naym
Rosenberg at mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 9/3/09 8:44 PM:
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Something one should always try if a site doesn't load properly is to
>>> clear your browser cache.
>>
>> Besides reducing it by about 10.5 MB, it didn't help.
>
> You can try to Reset Safari (from the Safari menu), selecting items one
> at a time, starting with the items you're most willing to discard.
There are a number of items I really would like to avoid deleting --
particularly History, and Names/Passwords (I'm not sure about others) --
especially if they are not the cause of the problem.
(I believe I could replace History from my backup; I'm not clear where to
look for Names/Passwords.)
But I'm wondering if there are other things (besides Safari) worth looking
at (i.e., perhaps Safari is a casualty of a more-systemic problem). I ask
that because I've been plagued by chronic performance problems for the
longest time, well before the current Safari problem. And when I was
checking Safari's behavior in the "test" account, not only did Safari
perform the way it should, but the system overall was _very_ much more
responsive -- pretty much like it was for the first few months after I got
the machine. So, before logging out, I decided to check how well it would
remember and act upon the "Show View Options" settings in Finder windows --
something that has never seemed to work right for me. Though it was a bit
sluggish in a couple of windows, it worked quite well otherwise.
Although I realize that I didn't really spend the time in that account to
"put it (the system) through its paces," my impression was that it certainly
was behaving a lot more as it should -- and as it used to behave before the
recurring rashes of SBBODs, fading Dock icon labels, slow-to-respond
windows, constant need to force-quit apps, etc., etc.
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been plagued by chronic performance problems for the
> longest time, well before the current Safari problem
Do this. Get an extra hard drive, it will never go to waste, don't
worry, an external will do. Load up the OS from DVD. And what trouble do
you experience by starting up from it? Don't fiddle with it in any way.
If you are having trouble at that point, there may be trouble with your
RAM or motherboard.
--
dorayme
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 9/3/09 10:43 PM:
Wouldn't DU, TechTool Pro, or AHT reveal such hardware problems?
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> In article doraymeRidThis-055...@news.albasani.net, dorayme
> at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 9/3/09 10:43 PM:
>
> > In article <C6C5F3C2.44E39%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I've been plagued by chronic performance problems for the
> >> longest time, well before the current Safari problem
> >
> > Do this. Get an extra hard drive, it will never go to waste, don't
> > worry, an external will do. Load up the OS from DVD. And what trouble do
> > you experience by starting up from it? Don't fiddle with it in any way.
> > If you are having trouble at that point, there may be trouble with your
> > RAM or motherboard.
>
> Wouldn't DU, TechTool Pro, or AHT reveal such hardware problems?
Nothing like real trouble can reveal memory problems in my experience.
Although I have had limited success (to get clues mainly about what to
grab with my hands and jerk out) with some very long and time consuming
memory testing, many iterations. It may be different with your super
duper modern set up? I am used to slower machines and older diagnostic
software (the tech tools pro I had on OS 9 was nothing to write home
about!) But memory faults can be surprising in their effects.
You really do need to be able to test your machine on a clean install.
You should not be having any speed problems on your set up that are not
related to the internet. I have no idea how good your ISP is in NZ.
In Firefox, there is bandwidth meter as an extension, look it up and get
it and get some figures together.
You sound like you really would benefit from a nice clean external hard
drive, very very clean and new and as unfiddled with as possible. I know
how you kiwis get with everything when there are no sheep around, you
twiddle two much with things. One of the incredible features of OS X is
how utterly stable and fast it all works, but I can't say if you are
loading with every passing fad or what. Of course you should not be
being plagued with performance problems.
Have you got any other Macs around that will run any version of X. Do
they have any problems?
--
dorayme
Mike Rosenberg
> > Wouldn't DU, TechTool Pro, or AHT reveal such hardware problems?
>
> Nothing like real trouble can reveal memory problems in my experience.
Maybe telling him this for the 811th time will get it to sink in. So
many of his problems since he's had this iMac (although, ironically, not
the current Safari issue) can be attributed to defective RAM, and he
even already knows from the swapfiles discussion of several weeks ago
that he needs more RAM anyway. If it were my machine, I'd take out the
existing RAM and max it out with new RAM.
Mike Rosenberg
> There are a number of items I really would like to avoid deleting --
> particularly History, and Names/Passwords (I'm not sure about others) --
> especially if they are not the cause of the problem.
>
> (I believe I could replace History from my backup; I'm not clear where to
> look for Names/Passwords.)
The files that store these are all in:
~/Library/Safari
Rather than use the reset command, you can move these items out one at a
time (when Safari is not running) and see which one, if any, fixes the
problem. If the problem remains, put that file back and move on.
> But I'm wondering if there are other things (besides Safari) worth looking
> at (i.e., perhaps Safari is a casualty of a more-systemic problem).
THIS problem seems to be a rather specific one, and I strongly suspect
it's caused by one of your account-specific Safari files. However:
> I ask that because I've been plagued by chronic performance problems for
> the longest time, well before the current Safari problem. And when I was
> checking Safari's behavior in the "test" account, not only did Safari
> perform the way it should, but the system overall was _very_ much more
> responsive -- pretty much like it was for the first few months after I got
> the machine. So, before logging out, I decided to check how well it would
> remember and act upon the "Show View Options" settings in Finder windows
> -- something that has never seemed to work right for me. Though it was a
> bit sluggish in a couple of windows, it worked quite well otherwise.
Okay, well, this tells you where the haystack is, now you need to find
the needle. When I'm faced with a situation like this, I start with
~/Library/Preferences - moving it out to the desktop. I then log out and
back in to that account. Of course, all settings are now back to
default. If the problem is gone, I know it was due to something in that
folder. Here's where I wish there were an equivalent of Conflict
Catcher. Anyway, what I do at this point is label all the files in that
removed prefs folder one color, move them _all_ to the new Preferences
folder and say Do Not Replace to the prompt about files with the same
name. I log out and back in, verify that the problem still doesn't
exist, and start adding back the preferences that were not moved in the
previous step in batches, each time setting a different label color for
easy identification, and then logging out and back in, etc.
Of course, the problem isn't always due to a Preferences issue, so you
may have to do the same with Application Support...
Nick Naym
Rosenberg at mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 9/4/09 8:46 AM:
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> Wouldn't DU, TechTool Pro, or AHT reveal such hardware problems?
>>
>> Nothing like real trouble can reveal memory problems in my experience.
>
> Maybe telling him this for the 811th time will get it to sink in. So
> many of his problems since he's had this iMac (although, ironically, not
> the current Safari issue) can be attributed to defective RAM, and he
> even already knows from the swapfiles discussion of several weeks ago
> that he needs more RAM anyway. If it were my machine, I'd take out the
> existing RAM and max it out with new RAM.
I certainly think that more RAM wouldn't hurt. However, this "811th time"
comment doesn't seem to apply: none of the utilities indicate any RAM
problems, and (as I indicated at the time in comp.sys.mac.system) when I
brought the machine into Apple in mid April, their once-over didn't find any
hardware problems.
As far as the discussion regarding swap files is concerned, I don't believe
that the consensus was that I actually _needed_ more RAM:
---------------
Subject: Re: Finder Problem?
Date: Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:50 PM
From: Mike Rosenberg <mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > But, AFAICR, I haven't changed anything recently -- no new apps, no
> > recent upgrades (I'm still on 10.5.6 with Safari 3.2.1), no new work habits
> > -- that would lead to a sudden change in memory requirements.
>
> Well it's certainly possible the performance degradation you are
> experiencing isn't related to memory...
True. There's been no indication of cause and effect. He'd probably be
happier overall with the iMac's performance if he had more RAM, but
installing more won't necessarily have any impact on the current
problem.
---------------
FWIW, I'd probably -- no, _definitely_ -- run out tomorrow and buy _both_
more RAM and another external HD (despite the horrid quality of currently
available drives) if I wasn't so strapped for cash), as I do feel that
they'd provide _some_ measure of "relief" (if not actual, at least
psychological).
Mike Rosenberg
> >>> Wouldn't DU, TechTool Pro, or AHT reveal such hardware problems?
> >>
> >> Nothing like real trouble can reveal memory problems in my experience.
> >
> > Maybe telling him this for the 811th time will get it to sink in. So
> > many of his problems since he's had this iMac (although, ironically, not
> > the current Safari issue) can be attributed to defective RAM, and he
> > even already knows from the swapfiles discussion of several weeks ago
> > that he needs more RAM anyway. If it were my machine, I'd take out the
> > existing RAM and max it out with new RAM.
>
> I certainly think that more RAM wouldn't hurt. However, this "811th time"
> comment doesn't seem to apply: none of the utilities indicate any RAM
> problems, and (as I indicated at the time in comp.sys.mac.system) when I
> brought the machine into Apple in mid April, their once-over didn't find any
> hardware problems.
Yes, and as dorayme said, which is what prompted my response, "Nothing
like real trouble can reveal memory problems in my experience." You can
find all sorts of descriptions of the experiences people have had with
memory that, while passing any test thrown at it, was nonetheless
defective and the problems went away immediately when it was replaced.
The one test that's by far and away the most revealing is actual use.
> As far as the discussion regarding swap files is concerned, I don't believe
> that the consensus was that I actually _needed_ more RAM:
No, you don't _need_ more RAM. No one absolutely _needs_ more RAM. It's
always a matter of what sorts of performance hits one is willing to put
up with that determines the _desire_ to add more RAM. If someone runs a
computer with the bare minimum of RAM it requires to run at all and is
perfectly happy waiting while things bog down on a regular basis, that
person doesn't need more RAM. Meanwhile, someone else using an identical
computer with twice as much RAM doing identical tasks may be unhappy
with that level of performance.
You've expressed frustration with your iMac's performance and have
demonstrated that it's frequently using virtual memory, hence it would
appear that adding more RAM would be beneficial to you.
Jolly Roger
mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Wouldn't DU, TechTool Pro, or AHT reveal such hardware problems?
> > >>
> > >> Nothing like real trouble can reveal memory problems in my experience.
> > >
> > > Maybe telling him this for the 811th time will get it to sink in. So
> > > many of his problems since he's had this iMac (although, ironically, not
> > > the current Safari issue) can be attributed to defective RAM, and he
> > > even already knows from the swapfiles discussion of several weeks ago
> > > that he needs more RAM anyway. If it were my machine, I'd take out the
> > > existing RAM and max it out with new RAM.
> >
> > I certainly think that more RAM wouldn't hurt. However, this "811th time"
> > comment doesn't seem to apply: none of the utilities indicate any RAM
> > problems, and (as I indicated at the time in comp.sys.mac.system) when I
> > brought the machine into Apple in mid April, their once-over didn't find any
> > hardware problems.
>
> Yes, and as dorayme said, which is what prompted my response, "Nothing
> like real trouble can reveal memory problems in my experience." You can
> find all sorts of descriptions of the experiences people have had with
> memory that, while passing any test thrown at it, was nonetheless
> defective and the problems went away immediately when it was replaced.
> The one test that's by far and away the most revealing is actual use.
I'll vouch for that. The thing with RAM failures is they are very often
*not* complete or catastrophic, but rather hard to diagnose. The
symptoms can vary wildly.
> > As far as the discussion regarding swap files is concerned, I don't believe
> > that the consensus was that I actually _needed_ more RAM:
>
> No, you don't _need_ more RAM. No one absolutely _needs_ more RAM. It's
> always a matter of what sorts of performance hits one is willing to put
> up with that determines the _desire_ to add more RAM. If someone runs a
> computer with the bare minimum of RAM it requires to run at all and is
> perfectly happy waiting while things bog down on a regular basis, that
> person doesn't need more RAM. Meanwhile, someone else using an identical
> computer with twice as much RAM doing identical tasks may be unhappy
> with that level of performance.
>
> You've expressed frustration with your iMac's performance and have
> demonstrated that it's frequently using virtual memory, hence it would
> appear that adding more RAM would be beneficial to you.
Agreed. RAM is really cheap right now, too.
According to RamSeeker.com, Crucial has 1 GB iMac 800 MHz PC2 6400 chips
for $12.99, assuming you have one free RAM slot:
<http://www.ramseeker.com/memory/iMac_(PC2_6400)/>
And if both RAM slots are full, I see that Crucial has a 2 GB 800 MHz
PC2-6400 DDR2 iMac chips for $31.99:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/nppeme>
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Mike Rosenberg
> I'll vouch for that. The thing with RAM failures is they are very often
> *not* complete or catastrophic, but rather hard to diagnose. The
> symptoms can vary wildly.
I bought a June 2003 MDD G4 when that model was brand new, which came
with one Apple-supplied 512MB DIMM, along with a free one from MacMall.
I ordered a third one from Data Memory Systems. I impulsively installed
both the additional ones before booting up for the first time. Big
mistake! The G4 had at least one hard freeze or kernel panic a day.
Figuring it was a RAM issue, I booted from the Apple Hardware Disk and
ran it in loop mode overnight. No problems were detected. I ran another
memory test overnight as well, again no problems.
I tried running the Mac with only 1 DIMM installed. Each one
individually was fine - I could go several days without a glitch. I
tried them all pairwise, again no problems. Went back to all three, the
problems returned immediately. I ruled out the DIMM slots as the cause.
On a hunch, I bought another DIMM from DMS, replaced the
MacMall-supplied DIMM, and all was well. Oh, and then someone else was
able to use that one without any issues.
Jolly Roger
mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll vouch for that. The thing with RAM failures is they are very often
> > *not* complete or catastrophic, but rather hard to diagnose. The
> > symptoms can vary wildly.
>
> I bought a June 2003 MDD G4 when that model was brand new, which came
> with one Apple-supplied 512MB DIMM, along with a free one from MacMall.
> I ordered a third one from Data Memory Systems. I impulsively installed
> both the additional ones before booting up for the first time. Big
> mistake! The G4 had at least one hard freeze or kernel panic a day.
> Figuring it was a RAM issue, I booted from the Apple Hardware Disk and
> ran it in loop mode overnight. No problems were detected. I ran another
> memory test overnight as well, again no problems.
>
> I tried running the Mac with only 1 DIMM installed. Each one
> individually was fine - I could go several days without a glitch. I
> tried them all pairwise, again no problems. Went back to all three, the
> problems returned immediately. I ruled out the DIMM slots as the cause.
> On a hunch, I bought another DIMM from DMS, replaced the
> MacMall-supplied DIMM, and all was well. Oh, and then someone else was
> able to use that one without any issues.
Yep. I've had similar experiences. Partially-faulty RAM can be a bitch
to troubleshoot. And unfortunately, it seems to be the most common type!