Replies

SMBP

Again thanks for a quick reply. I have so far read many of the links.
After my last answer it happened again, not exactly same. Was reading some help files, then suddenly a reboot. This time it just stopped at boot menu and froze. No message at all. I booted and chosed RC and ran chkdsk C: /r. It found some errors and fixed them. I booted back to Normal. Something is not working…

Regarding RC, I do understand what can be done with some of the commands and the limitations to access only root, systemroot and CD etc. It was this understanding that the tool might be useful that made me install it on drive as second option to CD some months ago. I appreciate your work to inform about RC.

As to SFC, something certainly went wrong. I mean, in Event viewer there are a log showing how it tries to restore then another log event that says failed to restore. OK, good nothing happened. But then I find out that DirectX files are ver. 8.1 or at least dxdiag is. AIDA32 reports DirectX version 9.0, 4.09.00.0902 that’s “b” I suppose. Or maybe it was just the dxdiag that went back to old 8.1? But then there are some errors in DirectPlay service providers.

Also, I sometimes use Adaptec/Roxio DirectCD. Now it seems like the program doesn’t work properly. It doesn’t recognize my previous formated CD in CD-RW drive. Now it works as if I had put the CD in CD/DVD-reader, properties does not show empty space. I have not tried to copy anything to the CD though. First the system must be working properly.

Yes, the possibility to use System restore from Safe mode with Command prompt could be very useful in the future, thanks for that link. Now days theres no problem running win programs from command prompt, so the trick is just to remember the file “rstrui.exe”. This KB304449 about running Sys. restore from command prompt is certainly worth mentioning to new XP users who are confused about Adv. boot menu opt. It does not help me for the moment as I deactivated System restore.

I did some initial search for mentioned error codes. Yes, 0x800b0100 was mentioned in KB 263566 installing Win 2000 SP1, “No signature present in the subject.”

My DirectX was, as described, a patched 9.0. Now, I’m not so sure of the status of my DirectX so I guess I have to download the complete 9.0b as you mentioned. I do not know what to do next but search for some info. about error codes. Well, maybe it’s time for autumn cleaning and do a clean install, I have all the patches so far on CD media.

All this could also be related to the fact that the machine now is 12 months and three days… My old win95 machine ran over 5 years before I did reinstall the OS.

Regards,
Argus

SMBP

Many thanks for your quick answer and all the links to earlier threads. The system is now stable I think; I have not done any re-install of for instance DirectX. I am aware about the security problem with DirectX, sorry that I didn

SMBP

Many thanks for your quick answer and all the links to earlier threads. The system is now stable I think; I have not done any re-install of for instance DirectX. I am aware about the security problem with DirectX, sorry that I didn

During my first time working with Windows XP I always wondered about the tip to press F8 when boot menu shows up, to select for instance Safe Mode. Maybe, I thought, it’s because this is an OEM or something else; it didn’t have a boot menu. But for obvious reasons, there is only one OS and one hardware profile, so why would it show a boot menu.

Then, I also, thought it might be nice if there was some little time delay for those occasions I want to select start config.

If you install the Recovery Console you get a boot menu with two choices; Windows XP or the Recovery Console. Thus you don’t have to copy anything just to get another entry.

Then, of course, there might be people who don’t want the Recovery Console on boot menu. But I suppose almost everyone has a good password for the administration account.

Regards,

Dave,

OK, any special program that I should take the screen shots from; System information, Task manager etc?

Joe,

That

John,

Well, buying another 512 MB seems to be a little too much for the moment, even though XP certainly would run even greater (maybe 256 MB, and spend some money on some program). I agree with the suggestion of biggest module in lowest slot number, that’s the way I would have done it, required or not.

I don’t know if this could be a result of putting “wrong” memory in the machine, i.e. memory that’s not supported? But the machine has been running great. I haven’t had any major problem with programs, patches etc. The only thing was that I had to replace the CPU cooler fan after 2 months because it started to sound very loud.

I will take a look at Aida and Sandra support sites and try to contact them.

Thanks for your answers so far.

Well, wouldn’t it be great to find that your new PC had been equipped with more memory or a faster CPU than you actually bought. But no, sadly isn’t that the case, it’s so empty in there

kip,

The BIOS setup reports:
Base mem. 640K
Ext. mem. 261120K
Tot. mem. 262144K

The BIOS has been set to “Quick Power On Self Test” since the day I bought the machine. I had almost forgot about the full memory check (on my old machine with 20 MB it doesn’t take so long time to perform…). Well, disabling the quick test doesn’t change anything; BIOS report 262144K OK.

Joe, kip and John,

Yep, I’ve opened the box. (Isn’t that almost the first thing you do when you get your new machine, maybe it’s just me…)

There is, as I said before, one memory module in slot DDR1 (User’s Guide refer to it as DDR1). I don’t know so much about different kinds of memory modules, but it has 8 small chips on each side, and it’s supposed to be a 256 MB DDR SDRAM. As far as I know, now it doesn’t matter in which memory slot you put the memory module.

This is a fairly new machine, 11 months, and I haven’t moved around or installed any new hardware. Even though I’m quite used to working inside a computer, I’d prefer not moving anything in this machine during guarantee period. Of course it might change the result if I move the memory module to slot 2, but why? I mean, if you are going to build a machine and you have only one memory module the obvious place to put it would be the first slot.

Now days I do not think there are any jumpers on the mainbord related to memory, my board has only jumpers for clearing CMOS, KB wake up, BIOS protection and CPU ratio. The only thing left, as I mentioned in first question, is if there are anything in BIOS setup not correct configured.

Regards,

John,

yes, Task managerPhysical Mem. Total report the correct amount of memory (so does Control PanelSystem).

But, as far as I know virtual memory should be the sum of physical memory and the swap file (pagefile.sys). The typical answer to my question is that I forgot about the swap file and that some programs report virtual memory. As I see it, this does not have anything to do with the swap file. For the moment the swap file has a fixed size of 640 MB on one of the partitions. (Another question could be why the programs report 874 MB swap space …).

As I mentioned, Windows XP “System Information” shows on the first page Total Physical Memory 768.00 MB. StartHelp has a tool that shows info. about My computer. Memory capacity (RAM) shows 768 MB.

Programs, such as Sandra and Aida, report 256 MB physical memory, BUT when they show information about the individual memory slots there is:
256 MB
Empty
512 MB
(see attachment).
It could be the capacity, not installed, but why then “empty”. On this board there is a max memory module size of 512 MB.

Joe,

there is 256 MB installed. That is, one memory module of 256 MB DDR PC2100 in one memory slot. The two remaining memory slots are empty.

Mainboard:
ECS K7S6A, SiS-745
BIOS:
Award v6.00, rev. 1.0f
Memory:
Hyundai, 256 MB DDR PC2100

Today, as I read this question, I found a new way to deal with Quick Launch Toolbar.

The reason for reading was that my brother had the same problem on a laptop with Windows 2000 (Quick Launch to the right), and he thought it might have something to do with an uninstall of some games etc. that went wrong. I didn’t think about his question so much until now.

After reading Leif’s answer I tried to “simulate” my brothers problem. On my machine, Win XP Home, the Quick Launch Toolbar normally shows three icons and a arrow to a menu containing the rest. If I unlocked the taskbar I could move the Quick Launch Toolbar (QLT to the right, resize etc. and then lock taskbar and thus see the described problem. But if I then unlocked the taskbar and moved QLT to the left I found that I couldn’t repeat the process (moving to the right); there was only a dividing line to the left.

It is possible that I could find a way to drag the QLT with that dividing line, but I found one way that is so much easier to re-arrange the taskbar and moving the Quick Launch Toolbar: double click on the dividing line.

You can repeatedly double click to change arrangement.

This might be common knowledge, but for me it is new.

Regards,

Again, thanks for your replies. It seems more and more like if there is a solution it will be given here in the Lounge.

Solution to my problem:
The integrated ZIP file viewer in Windows XP is, though very basic, a great step forward. However after installing Windows XP and adding different programs I also installed another ZIP program. The ZIP files where associated with the new program. Thus, I didn’t unreg “zipfldr.dll”. It worked well, but I found it a bit annoying to get multiple files in search result.

Thanks to Cowboy I tried following:
I removed the association with ZIP files in the ZIP program. Now the files where associated with the integrated “zipfldr.dll”. Then I run: regsvr32 /u zipfldr.dll. Search result didn’t include ZIP files, OK. After that I associated ZIP files with the ZIP program. It works great, no ZIP files included and no multiple files.

Joe: your link gave also info. to understand how this work. If there is no other ZIP program than the integrated “file viewer”, you have to unreg. and then reg. after, to stop searching in ZIP files. I’m glad I use different ZIP program.

Next step would be to not include “My computer” (don’t know english name, using non-english Windows), as search result also includes links to files. But that is probaly not possible.

Many thanks!

Regards,

Thanks for quick answer. Well, for the moment I have another compression utility associated with ZIP files. So I guess I don’t have to disable the integrated ZIP file viewer. Normally one would like to be able to do searches in arhcive files. But if you have many ZIP files and some of the content have been extracted, you will end up with multiple files during a search.

There should be a way to choose if archives should be included in search. Perhaps DOS is the only alternative?

Well, talking about services. There is to my knowledge one issue that can result in these symptoms. There is a service called “Print Spooler”, and if it’s not running Windows XP will not see your printer.

If you, for example, have added a printer and it is working properly, stopping the mentioned service will result in that XP doesn’t see any printer (and thus no printer in “Printer folder) and asks you to add one when you try to print etc. If the service then is started the printer will reappear.

Check if “Print Spooler” is running (using Run: services.msc or adm. tool), see “Status”. Normally this service is configured as “auto”, it starts with the computer or on first call. If it is not in “auto mode”, just double-click on the service and change start method on first tab.

In case of a previously working printer not responding, restarting this service may help.

(I have no printer connected to my XP machine, but then there is MS Excel … “preview” doesn’t work as it does with MS Word etc, so I have to install a non existing printer, sigh.)

Regards,

Thanks for a quick reply!

Well, any file name, example: Test.zip. Since I have not been sending or receiving attachments after upgrading to SP-3 I made some dummy files for evaluation purpose; zip and txt. Also I tried with a small exe (in this case executable zip-file).

Regarding time: no, the file was not created in another time zone. As described, I created some files, sent them, read the mail and saved the files.

The result is the same if I save in different folders. Funny (?) is that “created” and “changed” has exactly same time and seconds always is “00”, for example 08:15:00. But time for “used” is actual time I saved the file, for example 07:15:59.

Ah well, I guess I should have kept the old Pegasus mail …

Any other thoughts are appreciated.

Regards,