PDA

View Full Version : Re: Is Intel 440 Chipset Compatible with XP Pro?


John
August 14th 03, 08:21 PM
I have a 440BX with Win XP Pro on it, and I've never seen the type of errors
you are talking about.

If you get a brand new drive, make sure you use it as your main drive
because it's going to be way faster than your old drive. Use Norton Ghost's
DiskToDisk option to make a clone copy of the old drive onto the new drive.


"guy2003" > wrote in message
...
> I recently upgraded my old Pentium II 450 machine from NT4 to XP Pro.
> I don't seem to be able to get rid of that annoying "Limited Virtual
> Memory, etc." indication at log on.
>
> According to Q316528 from Microsoft, I may need to download the Intel
> Application Accelerator. However, Intel doesn't currently provide
> one for the 440 Chipset Family (actually, I don't know if they ever
> did).
>
> If they did, does anyone know where I could find an old archived
> version?
>
> My hard drive was initially partitioned into C & D, and I have only
> 941 MB free space avaialable on C where my applications reside, and
> 2.94 GB free on D.
>
> I was wondering if an additional "slave" hard drive would solve this.
>
> Prior to this, I followed the instructions on Q315270 also discussing
> another root cause for this Limited Virtual Memory problem -- but
> without succes there either.
>
> Finally, I have 384 MB of RAM.
>
> Any help would be very much appreciated here. Thanks in advance.

John
August 14th 03, 08:26 PM
You'd think that sort of thing would be built right into the OS wouldn't
you. But we're talking Microsoft here...


"Yves Thomas" > wrote in message
om...
> Forgive me if this is elementary.
>
> Can one move an application from one drive to another without first
> deleting that application & re-installing it in the desired drive?
>
> For example, could one just take the directory where an application's
> files are located and moving that entire directory to a new drive?
>
> Does something need to be changed in the registry so that the
> operating system know to go to that new directory when that
> application is invoked?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tim wrote
> > Another option is to move large applications from C to D.
> >
> > I have limited space on one machine on C - so I have a program files
folder
> > on E as well with MS Office, and many other things. It has been like
that
> > for years.
> >
> > If you run your machine below its memory limits most of the time, having
> > another swap file or placing it on D furrther down the physical drive
will
> > not make much of a difference to performance. The swap file gets used
when
> > memory becomes oversubscribed. Under normal circumstances (IE where you
are
> > using less actual memory than the machine has) the swap file will get
little
> > if any work. If you frequently run, and have concurrently active
> > applications which oversubscribe memory (IE are larger than will
actually
> > fit) your swap file will get a lot of IO's. The best way to solve that
> > problem is with more memory - a faster CPU will help slightly, but more
> > memory...... lots more. Take a look at Task Manager (right click on the
task
> > bar to bring it up) under Performance and look at Physical, Peak, and
Total
> > numbers while working to get an idea of how you Do use memory - any
peaks
> > over or near (physical - 64MB) or so = swapping. This is a very rough
> > guestimate and depends on the services you are running and many other
> > factors.
> >
> > If you want to get right into this, you could go into Admin tools and
fireup
> > the Performance Monitor. In there are many metrics you can view while
the
> > machine is running which will show memory, swap file usage, CPU, IO's
etc
> > etc etc. PerfMon places a *small* load on the system: what you see is
close
> > to what is happening.
> >
> > The usual(and ideal) these days on windows systems, under normal usage
is to
> > have more than enough memory for all your applications to be present in
main
> > memory resulting in no swapping at all worth looking at.
> >
> > I would:
> >
> > Move apps to D and free as much space on C as possible.
> > Empty all temp directories,
> > Shoot your IE Browser cache,
> > Empty the recycler...
> > Delete obsolete files...
> > Move the swap file to D
> > reboot so the new swap file is in use.
> > Defrag C as completely as possible.
> > Move the swap file back - if you wish.
> >
> > - Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "daytripper" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:03:29 GMT, guy2003 >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I recently upgraded my old Pentium II 450 machine from NT4 to XP Pro.
> > > >I don't seem to be able to get rid of that annoying "Limited Virtual
> > > >Memory, etc." indication at log on.
> > > >
> > > >According to Q316528 from Microsoft, I may need to download the Intel
> > > >Application Accelerator. However, Intel doesn't currently provide
> > > >one for the 440 Chipset Family (actually, I don't know if they ever
> > > >did).
> > > >
> > > > If they did, does anyone know where I could find an old archived
> > > >version?
> > > >
> > > >My hard drive was initially partitioned into C & D, and I have only
> > > >941 MB free space avaialable on C where my applications reside, and
> > > >2.94 GB free on D.
> > > >
> > > >I was wondering if an additional "slave" hard drive would solve this.
> > > >
> > > >Prior to this, I followed the instructions on Q315270 also discussing
> > > >another root cause for this Limited Virtual Memory problem -- but
> > > >without succes there either.
> > > >
> > > >Finally, I have 384 MB of RAM.
> > > >
> > > >Any help would be very much appreciated here. Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > > fwiw, I have three ASUS P3B-F 440BX boards here running XP Pro, no IAA
and
> > no
> > > problems.
> > >
> > > You could get a little more life out of your system with a larger
disk,
> > but in
> > > the meantime, try putting a second swap file on your D partition. It
won't
> > be
> > > the fastest solution but it might keep Windows from bitching...
> > >
> > > /daytripper
> > >

chrisv
August 15th 03, 01:51 PM
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:26:51 +1000, "John"
> wrote:

>You'd think that sort of thing would be built right into the OS wouldn't
>you. But we're talking Microsoft here...

135 lines for that. Huh.

John
August 16th 03, 12:46 AM
Context


"chrisv" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:26:51 +1000, "John"
> > wrote:
>
>
> 135 lines for that. Huh.
>
> You'd think that sort of thing would be built right into the OS wouldn't
> you. But we're talking Microsoft here...


"Yves Thomas" > wrote in message
om...
> Forgive me if this is elementary.
>
> Can one move an application from one drive to another without first
> deleting that application & re-installing it in the desired drive?
>
> For example, could one just take the directory where an application's
> files are located and moving that entire directory to a new drive?
>
> Does something need to be changed in the registry so that the
> operating system know to go to that new directory when that
> application is invoked?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tim wrote
> > Another option is to move large applications from C to D.
> >
> > I have limited space on one machine on C - so I have a program files
folder
> > on E as well with MS Office, and many other things. It has been like
that
> > for years.
> >
> > If you run your machine below its memory limits most of the time, having
> > another swap file or placing it on D furrther down the physical drive
will
> > not make much of a difference to performance. The swap file gets used
when
> > memory becomes oversubscribed. Under normal circumstances (IE where you
are
> > using less actual memory than the machine has) the swap file will get
little
> > if any work. If you frequently run, and have concurrently active
> > applications which oversubscribe memory (IE are larger than will
actually
> > fit) your swap file will get a lot of IO's. The best way to solve that
> > problem is with more memory - a faster CPU will help slightly, but more
> > memory...... lots more. Take a look at Task Manager (right click on the
task
> > bar to bring it up) under Performance and look at Physical, Peak, and
Total
> > numbers while working to get an idea of how you Do use memory - any
peaks
> > over or near (physical - 64MB) or so = swapping. This is a very rough
> > guestimate and depends on the services you are running and many other
> > factors.
> >
> > If you want to get right into this, you could go into Admin tools and
fireup
> > the Performance Monitor. In there are many metrics you can view while
the
> > machine is running which will show memory, swap file usage, CPU, IO's
etc
> > etc etc. PerfMon places a *small* load on the system: what you see is
close
> > to what is happening.
> >
> > The usual(and ideal) these days on windows systems, under normal usage
is to
> > have more than enough memory for all your applications to be present in
main
> > memory resulting in no swapping at all worth looking at.
> >
> > I would:
> >
> > Move apps to D and free as much space on C as possible.
> > Empty all temp directories,
> > Shoot your IE Browser cache,
> > Empty the recycler...
> > Delete obsolete files...
> > Move the swap file to D
> > reboot so the new swap file is in use.
> > Defrag C as completely as possible.
> > Move the swap file back - if you wish.
> >
> > - Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "daytripper" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:03:29 GMT, guy2003 >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I recently upgraded my old Pentium II 450 machine from NT4 to XP Pro.
> > > >I don't seem to be able to get rid of that annoying "Limited Virtual
> > > >Memory, etc." indication at log on.
> > > >
> > > >According to Q316528 from Microsoft, I may need to download the Intel
> > > >Application Accelerator. However, Intel doesn't currently provide
> > > >one for the 440 Chipset Family (actually, I don't know if they ever
> > > >did).
> > > >
> > > > If they did, does anyone know where I could find an old archived
> > > >version?
> > > >
> > > >My hard drive was initially partitioned into C & D, and I have only
> > > >941 MB free space avaialable on C where my applications reside, and
> > > >2.94 GB free on D.
> > > >
> > > >I was wondering if an additional "slave" hard drive would solve this.
> > > >
> > > >Prior to this, I followed the instructions on Q315270 also discussing
> > > >another root cause for this Limited Virtual Memory problem -- but
> > > >without succes there either.
> > > >
> > > >Finally, I have 384 MB of RAM.
> > > >
> > > >Any help would be very much appreciated here. Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > > fwiw, I have three ASUS P3B-F 440BX boards here running XP Pro, no IAA
and
> > no
> > > problems.
> > >
> > > You could get a little more life out of your system with a larger
disk,
> > but in
> > > the meantime, try putting a second swap file on your D partition. It
won't
> > be
> > > the fastest solution but it might keep Windows from bitching...
> > >
> > > /daytripper
> > >

daytripper
August 16th 03, 03:34 AM
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:46:30 +1000, "John" > wrote:
>
>"chrisv" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:26:51 +1000, "John"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> 135 lines for that. Huh.
>
>
>Context
>

149 lines for that. Huh.