1 |
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:15:30 +0100 |
2 |
Peter Humphrey <peter@××××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Tuesday 28 August 2012 21:57:43 Alex Schuster wrote: |
5 |
> > I wrote: |
6 |
> > > Well, all I can do now is to get a new board and see if things |
7 |
> > > will be okay then. |
8 |
> > [...] |
9 |
> > So I had to wait. And when it became available, I wondered if it |
10 |
> > might be the processor instead that has the problem, so I let the PC |
11 |
> > shop diagnose CPU and board. This took until today, and they |
12 |
> > confirmed it was the board indeed, not the CPU. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Let me get this straight. The shop ran tests and concluded that the |
15 |
> motherboard was faulty, not the CPU? |
16 |
> |
17 |
> > Fine, I bought the board |
18 |
> |
19 |
> ...it having been tested and found faulty! |
20 |
> |
21 |
> > guess what - it doesn't work. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Sorry, but I must be misreading this. You've said that the board was |
24 |
> diagnosed faulty, but you bought it anyway and it turned out faulty. |
25 |
> Where is the mystery? |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Is this a problem with the English language? I thought I knew it |
28 |
> inside- out, upside-down and back-to-front. I still think so. Yet |
29 |
> your account has you tying yourself in knots over a known fault. |
30 |
> |
31 |
|
32 |
No, not at all. He means (just read the whole mail with a view to |
33 |
understanding the communication, not finding the grammar faults) that |
34 |
the shop diagnosed the old board was faulty so he bought a new board |
35 |
which involved a week's wait. |
36 |
|
37 |
That board now might be faulty too. |
38 |
Most obvious cause: Something is breaking the motherboards. |
39 |
Most obvious root cause: PSU |
40 |
|
41 |
Rule #1 in dealing with odd weird strange computer faults is ALWAYS |
42 |
test with another PSU of at least twice the capacity you think you need. |
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
Alan McKinnon |
50 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |