Talk:MemTest86

Needs Split? (2013)

As of Sept 2013, both memtest86 and memtest86+ are in active development. I recommend a new section be created for memtest86+ within the current memtest86 page as memtest86+ is now clearly a fork and not a continuation of the original. Anyone have any opinions on this? →Kyosuke Aoki∙♫_talk∙^contribs♪ 20:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's less of a "split," which normally implies dividing the article into two or more separate ones, than it is an edit/reorganization. For reasons already discussed on this page, I think a true split would be a bad idea. But I think reorganizing the material within this article is a fine idea - "be bold" and go for it. GodaiNoBaka (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

But as of December 2013 the PassMark no-longer-Beta v5 release of memtest86 (that requires UEFI) is not open source: only the old v4 BIOS-based source code is open: See the History part of the Overview tab on http://www.memtest86.com for their statement of this. So a split seems appropriate and updates to the memtest86 (no +) description seem appropriate. --Marklmill (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Asbolutely. These are two different products, one open source, currently completely dead, working only for BIOS/MBR computers, the other one is only for EFI computers and it's actively developed. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue the article is about at least 3 different programs at this point: The original MemTest86 for BIOS, which was GPL and is now dead, the PassMark MemTest86 which is the successor in brand name due to the purchase but is a rewrite with different license, and MemTest86+ which is a fork of the original and as such is the successor in terms of code, rather than name. It's one program and two of its successors, all of which do the exact same thing. PCMemTest is also mentioned as a temporary fork that was merged back. I don't think a split is really necessary until there is an article's worth of difference between them. ~2025-43555-25 (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

memtest86+ has a newer beta

memtest86+ released a new beta this month and is working towards a stable release with UEFI support. Should we update the article accordingly? SugaryHull (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of release notes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The good news is that the text and infoboxes are properly updated now. The bad news is that the screenshot is now hillariously out-of-date... (Virtual machine screenshots can't properly show the CPU temperature feature anyways -- anyone up for a image capture card?) --Artoria2e5 🌉 18:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Conflict of Interest Declaration

I am affiliated with PassMark Software. In line with Wikipedia's guidelines, I am requesting that an independent editor review the page layout to correct a systemic Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) bias. The current wording subtly frames standard commercial or architectural choices as inherent product flaws, which violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

1. Clarifying Technical Trade-off in History Section

Current text: "The program is compiled as position-independent code so as to be able to move itself around and test all the memory regions. The proprietary PassMark version does not have this ability."

The Bias & Correction: Framing this as a simple "lack of ability" carries an ideological FOSS bias. When PassMark transitioned the codebase to native UEFI (Version 5.0+), the program had to operate within standard UEFI firmware memory allocation rules, which dictate fixed protected blocks. PassMark made a deliberate engineering trade-off to utilize this modern framework to enable substantial features that outweigh scanning that small slice of RAM—such as high-resolution GUI environments, native mouse support, multi-core processing, and robust HTML/XML reporting.

Proposed neutral wording: "The original open-source version was compiled as position-independent code, allowing the program to relocate itself in memory to test regions it previously occupied. In contrast, PassMark's modern UEFI-based versions allocate a fixed block of memory through the system's UEFI firmware to support its expanded graphical user interface, multi-core architecture, and logging features."

(Note: The existing citation to PassMark's Known Issues documentation remains valid and should be kept to verify the behavior).

2. Clarifying Row-Hammer Test Attribution

Current text: "Version 6.0 (13 Feb 2015) adds support for DDR4 RAM, and a row-hammer test based on research from Yoongu Kim, et al."

Proposed neutral wording: "PassMark's Version 6.0 (13 Feb 2015) added support for DDR4 RAM and introduced a row-hammer test methodology based on research from Yoongu Kim, et al."

Rationale: Because this article covers both the original project and the independent open-source fork (Memtest86+), it is important to clearly attribute code milestones. The Row-Hammer test implementation in 2015 was unique to PassMark's development line, and explicit attribution prevents readers from conflating historic milestones between the two separate codebase streams.

3. Request for Overall Balance: Modern Architectural Milestones

To provide comprehensive, objective encyclopedic value and correct the current descriptive imbalance on the page, we request that independent editors integrate a neutral summary of the technical advancements introduced via PassMark's modern hardware development track. This ensures readers understand the technical evolution of the proprietary branch.

Verified technical capabilities and architecture specifications unique to modern PassMark MemTest86 include:

• Hardware-Level Module & Die Decoding: Capabilities expanding up to localized component-level failure parsing, pinpointing physical faulty chip/die locations on modern DDR4, DDR5, and LPCAMM2 modules across recent chipsets (e.g., Intel Meteor Lake, Arrow Lake, Bartlett Lake).
• Dynamic Memory Timing Analysis: Periodic mid-test polling and telemetry reading of real-time configured RAM settings, clock speeds (reported in MT/s), voltages, and DRAM temperatures.
• Enterprise Logging & Auditing Infrastructure: Native support for encrypted TLS data streaming to centralized databases, automated XML/JSON status reporting, and customizable HTML report generation incorporating extended 18-digit JEDEC serial numbers to match physical module labels.
• Firmware & Cryptographic Security: Native compliance with Microsoft SecureBoot page-alignment and permission-mitigation requirements, fully integrated via Extended Validation (EV) code-signing certificates.
• Industrial Scripting Automation: Comprehensive configuration file parameter execution (e.g., FAILECCERR, CHECKSPDSMBIOS, TSODPOLL) enabling unattended deployment execution, automated multi-config selection menus, and explicit ECC error injection overrides.

Sources for verification:

• PassMark MemTest86 Technical Feature Log and Support Database: https://memtest86.com

Thank you to any neutral editor available to apply these objective updates.

JAllanPM (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia is written by human beings. Write in your own words, without machine assistance, and see WP:COI for instructions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Suggest then just remove the following entirely:

"The proprietary PassMark version does not have this ability."

That decision was made to add significant functionality to MemTest86 knowing the trade offs and the way it phrases right now is that the product is defficient in contrast to the open source version because of that choice. To balance the article that would need to be explained, but that seems overkill - wikipedia shouldnt be a sales tool, or a feature list, but as the MemTest86 developer, I dont want inaccuracies or bias against us in an article that holds authority, given wikipedia is held as an authority. ~2026-53125-59 (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)