Memtest Vs Memtest+ Software-Change Request
Posted 24 August 2009 - 09:51 PM
Posted 25 August 2009 - 08:05 AM
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
Posted 25 August 2009 - 07:57 PM
Posted 26 August 2009 - 12:37 AM
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.
Posted 26 August 2009 - 07:44 AM
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:
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?
Posted 26 August 2009 - 07:36 PM
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.
Posted 27 August 2009 - 01:18 AM
Posted 27 August 2009 - 08:25 PM
I for one agree with that. Thank you!