Putting the Gigabtye H55M-S2V mobo "16GB max memory" discussion to bed ...

[DocTony]

I'll try to be brief. I came across this excellent forum because I was going bananas trying to get the Gigabyte H55M-S2V [ver 1.3] mobo to accept the Gigabtye touted "16 GB max memory" which their own user's manual [issued August 6, 2010, Rev. 1301] cited the mobo as being able to support 16GB DDR3 memory using two 2 X 8 DDR3 sticks . I tried everything but Windows 7 [64 bit] refused to budge and load itself with 16 GB installed into the mobo and so I hit the internet for answers.

I came across this forum and a quite excellent discussion between "Tradesman" and I believe another member of the forum called "Stephen H" who had the identical problem I had with this mobo and trying to install two 2 X 8 sticks sticks but no matter what one tried, Windows would not load with 16 GB of system memory [two 2 X 8 sticks].

Tradesman gave excellent possible solutions to the problem and, I must say, went the extra mile in that discussion looking for answers and I have an old Army buddy down South who loves to, as he says, "tinker' with these machines who saw Tradesman's suggestions and said they were "... the best I"ve seen to coax out Windows to load when it has system memory loading issues ... " and my buddy 'also' commented that if those solutions didn't work, and I quote, "... there is a very real possibility that this mobo just may NOT support 16GB but most likely only HALF that amount at 8 GB memory." To make a long story short and to note for the record that this mobo is still touted at bargain basement sales here and there on the internet that it can allegedly support 16GB but IT CAN NOT support 16GB and Gigabyte itself has REVISED their archives [take a look!] and any mention of "16 GB system max" is now nowhere to be seen [** despite their own 2010 user's manual stating otherwise!] and the ==revised== system memory max for the H55 [through version 1.4] mobo 'finally' reads "8 GB system max memory" in those two H55 DIMM slots! In effect, those going on what the mobo was touted to do [16GB] wasted their time [like yours truly here!] trying to, indeed, "cajole" Windows 7 to load when the H55M-S2V mobo IN FACT can NOT support 16GB! Only 8 GB max. As Gigabyte 'now', 3 years after the fact, finally admits on their website archive for the H55M-S2V mobo. --- DocTony

[DocTony]

Sorry to be so windy but what really got me was the original discussion between Tradesman and Stephen H. [as excellent as the discussion was and recommendations that 'otherwise' would have most likely have worked!] but Stephen cited what he was getting from Gigabyte techs where they literally insisted that the mobo could support 16GB and then they advise Stephen to perhaps get a faster CPU! Can you believe it! I mean you 'assume' that the manufacturer has done their R&D and then when things don't work you troubleshoot, OK, fair enough, but when the data [in terms of what the machine can do or support] ==itself== is totally bogus at the get-go, it becomes disheartening as solutions are searched for where the mobo itself can not support the touted memory! There. I've duly vented on the matter and will cease and desist forthwith. ;-) And yes, I still have the H55 but as a back-up machine running its MAX "8" GB system memory.

[Tradesman]

Here's one you might find interesting on mobo QVLs

http://www.gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=10566

which basically adds up to - So much for their 'testing', wouldn't have been surprised with this so called 'testing' that whoever was doing it was half asleep - I don't think I could ever just sit with a rig and a stach of sets of DRAM, and in effect, slap a set in , boot, sya 'Yeah it booted, pull the sticks , grab another set and do the same thing-----over and over again

[DocTony]

T-Man -- first, I must issue a forum user name correction in the person you were having that excellent 2011 discussion with on the H55 mobo/memory issue which is "Steven1209". Where I got "Stephen H" from escapes me but a clear lesson for me not to rely on my own memory! ;-)

You also made, besides those BIOS recommendations [which have been duly 'borrowed' by my old Army buddy "tinkerer" friend down South although he states he intends to render full attribution for those suggested settings to you if he shares it with others to coax Windows to accept certain system memory ... but when the mobo can honestly support it ... ;-)] , anyway, I recall you alluded to the seemingly 'extent' of 'some' R&D tech types of checking whether a mobo can support certain memory they claim the mobo can support by their simply seeing if the machine can reach the BIOS page and if Windows ticks off the correct memory 'count', well then, they figure that the machine can de facto support the claimed memory and they go no further!

Now, to support that, I read yet another frustrated H55 mobo user trying without success to get the mobo and subsequently Windows to accept the alleged 16GB memory and when ALL attempts to do so failed, THIS is what he was told [this was in mid 2011] by a Gigabyte tech as he relates the story to me and the Gigabyte tech says to him , "Sir ... if you physically see a screen [! -- emphasis mine] in front of you and the BIOS correctly calculates the 16GB installed memory, then obviously [!] the fault is not with the memory nor our motherboard [!! -- referring to the H55] but with 'your' installation of Windows [!] or any tweaks 'you' may have attempted within the BIOS settings page." In other words, the USER was the alleged "culprit" and not the memory nor the Gigabyte mobo! Hence when Steven1209 related to the Gigabyte tech all that he had tried [with your assistance] to get the H55 to accept the 16GB and the H55 or rather Windows 7 would not accept it, he is informed by the Gigabyte tech that perhaps a faster CPU may be the answer! What a farce when in the end it was found [by mobo users who tried and failed] that the H55 could in fact NOT support 16GB system memory but only 8GB total system memory and finally Gigabyte had to correct its archives on that mobo. The sad part is the user who reads the 2010 manual where the mobo is allegedly good to go for 16GB and goes through troubleshooting a la mode but all for naught!

Ahhhh, I'm far too wordy on this issue! But the matter got me going big time and it took almost 3 years for Gigabyte to 'finally' issue a website mobo archive correction! The only plus side is that I found this forum! T-man, there is a "Tradesman1" on the well regarded Tom's Hardware website, would that be you? I promise forthwith to keep my future posts much shorter but I can well relate to the hoops that Steven1209 [et al] went through with the H55 issue since I was, as they say, a fellow sufferer with that mobo and memory issue!

[Tradesman]

On your above subject (general) I've an info post you and your techie friend might find of interest here:

http://www.gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=10566

and there are some other info posts, you all may or may not find of interest

As to that opinionated loudmouth on Tomshardware, YES, that would be me a couple people here asked if I could help with a couple other brands of DRAM and some other components and while I don't mind helping anyone with most anything here, I'm not GSkill and don't really feel right about doing other DRAM here and that's basically what I told them, they then asked if I could check in over there, so got there names there and signed up - and those forums amaze me....there are so many passing bad info just on DRAM alone, when I hop in, it's enough to drive you crazy....but I sort of enjoy it, can be a bit more opinionated on things.

[DocTony]

I thought that might be you on Tom's Hardware although with the '1' added to your otherwise well known "Tradesman" in this forum. It had your 'touch', so to speak, but I mean that in the most complimentary manner. Tman, good case in point at Tom's Hardware, and the piece still appears on the internet if you Google "H55M-S2V memory issues" [or words to that effect] where yet another user was suffering from the Windows 7 rejection of the purported 16GB system memory and asks for help only to have someone show up and tell the guy that he [the one offering the help] has an H55 and had no difficulty in running 16GB of system memory in his "four slot" [!!] H55 and then he closed the discussion! I shook my head in disbelief because the Gigabyte H55M-S2V series of mobos [versions 1 through 4] only have TWO SDRAM slots! Apples vs oranges! And once the discussion was closed, the poor user with the problem and the H55M-S2V mobo and its TWO SDRAM slots was out of luck and no doubt had to go elsewhere!

So too on your excellent piece using your fictional "Acme XXX" analogy -- indeed as to far too often questionable advertising some manufacturers use and the unfortunate absence of any disclaimers in whatever they are hawking! Here, take the ads for those high end video cards like the Nvidia [I must admit to being an Nvidia fan over the years and their Geforce series] 660GTX and 680GTX [I have both and presently use the 680GTX card in my long-term flight sim hobby] --- WHERE do you ever see in the ad hype that the user MUST have a PSU that can handle these wattage hungry cards! In fact, only on the box [after the unsuspecting buy the card!] in the 680GTX do you see the caveat that with the 680GTX, a MINIMUM of 550 watts PSU power is not so much 'recommended' as it is 'required' because this card needs the PSU juice to run efficiently.

Still further, how many folks read ad specs on 'whatever' and they see things like "... NOW you can get an incredible 6 gigabits transfer speed ... " and not a single word to the, shall we say, uninitiated, where they would have greatly benefited by an ad hype disclaimer to the tune of ... "PLEASE NOTE: You must have a motherboard that supports SATA 3 technology [6 gigabits], otherwise you will NOT get this speed rate] which explains why 'X' in an Amazon write up says, "I bought the WD Velociraptor 10,000 RPM 1 TB SSD and I don't really see any speed increase at all .... " and then the writer indicates his motherboard which can only support SATA 1 [!] transfer speeds ... much less SATA 2 or 3 speeds! In effect, and my bias is showing here, but spec ads seem to have the major priority of selling the product in question and while they are high on what the product can do [with the right mobo anyway!], they are woefully silent on what the user has to have in order to 'get' those cited speed increases! Ditto the ad hype on PCI-E 3.0 versus PCI-E 2.0 or USB 3.0 versus USB 2.0, etc.

Again, you hit the nail on the head, "DO YOUR RESEARCH" on virtually any product but even here, as you also aptly point out, there is also much MISinformation out there and then it becomes a matter of separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff. You, Tradesman, AKA "Tradesman1" do an excellent job in separating the wheat from the chaff and thus provide a valuable service as a bulwark against misinformation or ad spec claims that prove to be entirely bogus due to boot level "testing" in BIOS but where the 'reality' is often far different when users collectively bellow that "it doesn't work!" and in various cases, they are right because the ad hype and/or MISinformation out there was calling the tune! So much for my promise to cut down my wordage but , then again, can there be anything more frustrating than ad specs that provide no disclaimers or, worse, out and out MISinformation even on websites that are otherwise highly regarded! We need folks to find the wheat! Watch now, someone reading this and makes the quip, "If Doc has used that last sentence alone, he could have summed it up rather succinctly!" And to that conjectured charge at Bar, I would duly pull a retro "Agnew" and plead Nolo Contendere! ;-)

[DocTony]

Here's an interesting one -- last night comes an email from a friend in Florida, to wit, "Doc ... I have a 2nd dedicated machine in my work room that isn't even connected to the internet and the Windows 7 is 'virgin' with no add-ons and I even activated it by phone so I know it's virus or malware free -- at idle, the HDD activity LED is constantly blinking but I don't know from what source! Any ideas?" My response: Yes! Are you using a Windows screensaver? He says to me, "Yes! "Mystify" after 20 minutes of no activity!" I respond, "Watch the HDD activity light and STOP any Windows screen savers by clicking "NONE."! That simple "cure" did the trick. Herein the difference between a "tinkerer" like me and a "tech", I had the "cure" [at least in this case] but had no idea of the, shall we say, underlying disease! WHY the screensaver was causing the constant HDD LED activity light to keep blinking, well, dunno the technical reason for that, but the "cure" worked and solved the problem.

[DocTony]

One more for the road and centering on my avid flight sim hobby [dating to PRE Microsoft FS98 days!] . I get, "Doc, I'm at my wits end ... you were right about those sim community produced planes [** all free and an amazing technical expertise by sim community users who have produced some fantastic aircraft packages but that's another story entirely ...] , anyway, the email went on, "I go to load the plane package and I keep getting "cannot find that directory, do you want to create a new one?" but I KNOW the directory is there as I can see it! And, yes, I even typed into the suggested aircraft program directory (x86) just like it is. What am I doing wrong as I can SEE the directory and it definitely exists!" CURE: After the word ProgramFiles in the 'suggested' directory, first hit the SPACE KEY one time [** "ONE ping only, Vasiley!" Quick, what movie? ;-) ] directly after the words "ProgramFiles" [as in XXXX/ProgramFiles (x86)/XXXX and after that SPACE, THEN type in (x86) and the auto-load program should recognize the existing X86 [32 bit] directory!

Second: "Doc ... I ran the auto-load aircraft programs without a hitch in Windows 7 but when I went to my FSX or even my older FS9, not a single plane was there! Nothing! They were nowhere to be found but I SAW them load! Where did they go?" CURE: Windows 7 looked for certain program signatures and didn't find it so it didn't load it even tho' it appears it did. Windows 7 will now give you the opportunity to run these external and often "non signed" sim community produced programs in ADMINISTRATOR mode. Run the auto-loaded set-ups again but this time click the Win 7 box to run them in ==Administrator mode== and then the Admin box that will pop up that , essentially, you're taking the risk in running the program and THEN they will load.

Quickie -- "Doc, FSX didn't provide any way to, you know, "adjust the seat" like they did in FS9. Any cures?" CURE: Yes! There IS a way within FSX! But it is NOT instantaneous! You Press CONTROL and Q but WAIT, I say WAIT, and after a few seconds or so, the 2D cockpit view will lower itself. The reverse is Control + SHIFT + Q to "raise the seat" but again, it's NOT instantaneous, it takes a few moments! Enjoy!

[Tradesman]

I like that you bring up the experiences as a tool of helping others as I find it to be the best 'tool', reading is all well and good (if it's an author who knows what he is saying, which all to often it's not) but I think experience normally trumps the reading end.