[twipley]

Hello. The Wikipedia page seems to state the "+" version is better in some ways. Why not in the next version make it so that version replaces the "standard," buggy version? I know how to build it so that it is so, but I was disappointed that my favorite boot cd came with a version of memtest that causes constant restarts and thus is non-usable.

[mbarnes]

Hi twipley

I dont think memtest86 is buggy just memtest86+ is updated more regularly
especially to deal with new chipsets etc

It is very easy to update ubcd4win plugin
if old file was memtest.bin rename memtest86+.bin to memtest.bin and over write previous version
or change plugin inf file (keep file name in 8.3 format)

and rebuild project

regards
Mike Barnes

[twipley]

Hello, dear mbarnes. For my part, I cannot, as some (or many, or most) people with 4 GB of RAM installed, run the program without suffering the famous "spontaneous system reboot." How widespread the issue is, I don't know. I simply know that it is written down on the Wikipedia page, and that here Memtest86 doesn't work, only Memtest86+ does.

[Gedrean]

twipley, on 25 August 2009 - 07:57 PM, said:

Hello, dear mbarnes. For my part, I cannot, as some (or many, or most) people with 4 GB of RAM installed, run the program without suffering the famous "spontaneous system reboot." How widespread the issue is, I don't know. I simply know that it is written down on the Wikipedia page, and that here Memtest86 doesn't work, only Memtest86+ does.

Apologies for the misunderstanding, Mr. 'twipley'.
Mbarnes means that you should rebuild the UBCD4WIN on another computer (or on this computer running Windows XP, wherever you built the first disc from) after taking those steps to replace the included Memtest86 ISO in the memtest plugin with the memtest86+ ISO - his steps will make the plugin run 86+ instead of 86, without the system knowing the difference, and with minimal changes to the plugin itself - much easier than building a new plugin or altering the plugin directly.

You will not need to run Memtest86 in order to do these steps.

Hope this clears things up.

[twipley]

Thanks Gedrean, that's very kind of you.

But, unfortunately the reason for the start of this topic is not "how to rebuild the disc with mt+," but "shouldn't we replace mt with mt+?."

I've already rebuilt the iso with mt+ instead of mt, but that's just for personal use. The aim of this topic is mainly to discuss whether, in future versions (e.g., v3.6), mt should be replaced with mt+.

I've browsed the web a little, just to get a glimpse of opinions:

http://forums.whirlp...cfm/971870.html
http://www.ocztechno...read.php?t=8081
http://forums.pcper....ad.php?t=436126

Are those discussion biased or objective, I can't tell. What I'm aiming for is the attainment of a sort of consensus over which version to use. And then, for the next version of UBCD4Win, which one to offer to people by default. So, are you in the boat?

[Lord Necron]

What about having the option for either one on the plugins page? Just a thought. Of course I do not know how much work that would take...

I have always just went into UBCD from my main boot menu and used that one. This would depend on having built your image with UBCD included though.

[twipley]

Yeah, I guess it would be better to have both included than just Memtest86.

[Lord Necron]

twipley, on 26 August 2009 - 10:36 PM, said:

Yeah, I guess it would be better to have both included than just Memtest86.

Can the poll be changed to include "Both"?

[pcuser]

We can include both in the next release but only one (+?) should be enabled by default because the 700MB limit is already such a critical issue lately.

[Lord Necron]

pcuser, on 27 August 2009 - 01:18 AM, said:

We can include both in the next release but only one (+?) should be enabled by default because the 700MB limit is already such a critical issue lately.

I for one agree with that. Thank you!