Pikey

Ok, a popular topic this one I know, but Windows 2000 Pro just keeps crashing! I suspect it doesn't like my hardware (hell, I don't greatly like my hardware) but all devices comply with the HCL except for one unknown quantity: the motherboard. First off, it installed fine, detected and installed all hardware; great, no probs. About 30 minutes into a virgin Win2000 session and BANG!, the computer rebooted. This happened several more times before I disabled the auto-reboot option and was rewarded instead with the BSOD familiar to all. This yielded the following bugcheck info: Stop 0x0000000A or IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL blah blah blah....However this was one Stop message amongst others including good old Stop 0x00000050 PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA and so on. It also generates errors frequently whilst using Internet Explorer, Event Viewer has reported errors with "Server" and "Perfctrs" amongst others, and all in all things are in a bloody mess. System specs are as follows: Pentium II 350 128MB PC100 SDRAM SiS 6326 AGP Video SoundBlaster PCI 128 10.2GB Maxtor HDD and....(oh dear) a generic PCChips M747 systemboard with an outdated BIOS that I believe to be the culprit. This came with an onboard SoundPro that quickly died hence the 128. However everything apart from said board is on the Win2000 HCL, and by outdated I mean the board only supports APM, which is currently disabled under Win2000. Soooo, Windows 2000 is a terrific OS but simply too volatile to use realistically, but I want to nail the culprit. This exact same system configuration presented no trouble at all under the previous Windows 98 installation. Oh, and by the way, this was a clean install onto a freshly formatted disk. Another curio. Win2000 prompts a lot of disk activity when it boots - it takes about 5 minutes to fully settle down from the desktop. I installed it onto my old Seagate drive and it was nowhere near as active. It also seemed a lot stabler, but I haven't tested this installation to any great extent. Any ideas about the Stop messages/BIOS/motherboard etc? Help!

Hi, Never had a problem with Quicktime previously, but just installed a new AthlonXP 2000+ and new motherboard, reinstalled XP, downloaded SP1 and downloaded Quicktime 6 so I could watch my exclusive Who videos from the Ultimate Collection CDs... Problems! I keep getting this message when I try to start Quicktime: "The application or DLL C:\Windows\System32\Quicktime.qts is not a valid Windows image. Please check this against your installation diskette" Then this one straight after: "Quicktime failed to initialize. Error# -2903. Please make sure this Quicktime is properly installed in this computer" A disclaimer first, I have run a search and but i could find no conclusive follow ups. This is driving me nuts. I have repeatedly installed/reinstalled versions 5 and 6, always the same. Any ideas? I am dying to watch these vids!

PR-Man, the answer you're after is yes, I use Panda Titanium, and I absolutely bloody love it. After Norton 2002 missed the ONLY virus i have ever had on my machine in four years, and then Symantec "losing" my one year subscription after a reinstallation and my "complimentary" 3 months free updates being used up again (what a bunch of skinflints!) I am very happy to be using Panda and be free of those Symantec schmucks forever. If your experience of ANY anti-virus is good, then fair play to you, but I will NEVER, ever resort to Norton again. Chalk up a happy Panda user here. It even catches virii still in memory. And phone support, considering most users haven't got a clue what to do with an "infected" file once they get one, and Norton seems to insist you delete it anyway...well. Course, i'm yet to download anything nasty... (That isn't an invitation BTW.) In concession, the myth of "resource hogging" Norton isn't true - by comparison, they're all pretty much the same. I WILL say that in their defence. Won't touch McAfee though. With a bargepole. Long, long story... Cheers

Hi Got a problem with Windows XP Pro. Or rather, Norton Utilities 2002 believes that I have a problem with it. Everytime I run WinDoctor it comes up with a missing file dialogue, and that it cannot repair a missing system file. The file in question is as follows: C:\WINDOWS\System32\MAPISRVR\.EXE That it can’t repair a missing file is fair enough, but I’ve run sfc.exe to scan and repair missing files and the problem persists with WinDoctor and/or there is no real problem. Suffice to say XP is still running like a champ, but Norton keeps giving this reported missing system file. I’ve got no idea what it is, so I’m calling on your expertise. Has anyone got any idea what this missing file is, and can I safely instruct Norton to ignore it? If sfc can’t pick up on it, then it can’t be that crucial, and XP file protection background scans would have picked it up long ago. I’m beginning to wonder why the hell I bother with Norton Utilities, as all it seems to do is clear up Active X files, but this is bothering me, for no good reason really. Any ideas? Um, by the way. I’ve had to disable 'Background Intelligent Transfer Service' due to it causing certain aspects of explorer to hang while it tries to load at startup. It loads, but it takes about 2 minutes repeated timeouts to do so. Can’t say I’ve missed it’s functionality, and it only occurred after an AutoUpdate (!). Any tips about that one while I’m here? So, XP is running like a champ apart from these two glitches! Oh, and my cat keeps sleeping on my scanner………. Pikey

Belated thanks to Xyphus. It was the Office SR1 MAPI32.DLL. in question after all. Sorry for not getting back here with an affirmative sooner, but that WAS the fault - not Norton Utilities at all! Many thanks for your feedback Xyphus, and Alien - that cat.scan site is very cool! Wouldn't want to risk my jugular putting my Ginger Tom under the scanner though, he likes it just fine on top. Anyway, Cheers Pikey

Absolutely right. Norton Speedisk, for instance, throws a wobbly if you try and run it from Windows 2000 with XP on a dual boot. Having said that, there were always problems running Check Disk from NT 4 when dual booting with 2000, so it's not always 3rd party software that causes problems with the many different shades of NTFS. (In fact, 3rd party stuff sometimes "corrects" these anomalies. I recall Sysinternals having a neat little freeware fix.) I wonder if chkdsk does the same with 2000/XP? I'd expect so, but I never tried it when I was dual booting. Cheers

Hi Thanks for the input. It looks as though you are all probably right. Norton Utilities, aside from SpeedDisk, just isn't worth it. It's now reporting false 'Security Descriptors' problems on the c drive. Running XP Check Disk reports no errors at all. Funny that. Perhaps Symantec stay in business by creating problems as fast as it supposedly fixes them? Surely with the benefit of an NT code base in 2000 and XP, such so called "Utilities" are now pretty much redundant anyway? I'm ditching 'em. Cheers

Hmmmmmm Well, i've cracked my particular problem (with the CD that is!) and downloaded the latest XP compat version of Nero. Now everything is running sweetly. Curious that, why would something like that affect the CD-ROM? Anyway... Cheers

Hi This is getting absolutely maddening! My Promise ATA100 TX2 controller arrived this morning. I immediately set it up and switched both ATA100 hard disks in my system on to it. No probs. Now, both CD and CD-RW drives are running off their own IDE ports, set as CD: Primary master, and CD-RW: Secondary master. I can read a CD in the CD-ROM immediately after bootup, such as installing a program or running a game. But, immediately after that action, stick another disc in, and it won't recognise it! I didn't "upgrade" to XP so I would have to repeatedly reboot the system to read CDs! Thank god Wolfenstein runs off the hard drive! Any input here folks? My housemates are beginning to complain about my temper tantrums! How about switching the master settings of the CD drives? Cheers (In anticipation)

Yup, i'm having exactly the same problem. What burning software are you using? I suspect this could be a conflict with native XP burning and your burning software, but thats just a wild guess. Any answers out there? Cheers

Hi I guess that what I am about to ask amounts to common sense really, but I thought I would canvas a few opinions anyway. Essentially, I have a PowerMan (Sparkle) 250W PSU powering my system, and a very good PSU it is too. Problem is, I’ve been making a few additions recently and I am mildly concerned about possible overload. Ok, my system isn’t exactly overwhelmed with gadgets, so this is the essential setup: 1GHZ Athlon T-Bird Gigabyte GA-7ZX Motherboard with onboard sound 60GB Maxtor 7200 HDD Lite-On 16/12/40 CD-RW LG 48X CD-ROM Asus Geforce 2 MX400 Pro 32MB AGP Video Diamond SupraSST 56K PCI Modem 1024MB PC-133 SDRAM (It’s so darn cheap now, why not?) Floppy, 1 exhaust fan etc etc Running Windows XP Professional At present the system seems perfectly stable and isn’t showing any signs of strain and/or overheating. It’s been in this current state for about a month. Thing is, I have the option of plugging in a 30GB IBM 75GXP 7200rpm HDD that’s just sitting idle. I suspect that this would be the straw that breaks the camels back and that its time for a 300w PSU at minimum. However, what are the symptoms of PSU overload? How would I be able to tell that my system is approaching critical mass, or worse, imminent meltdown? (Apart from it blowing up, of course.) BTW, the monitor is running off it’s own power supply. Any opinions would be appreciated. Am I within safe parameters at the moment, and would I be asking for serious trouble if I plugged that IBM in? Pikey

Hi Thanks for the feedback. Despite numerous assurances that the PowerMan can handle the load (on this site and others) i've decided to err on the side of caution and installed a Macron 300w that a friend kindly donated, and slapped the IBM in there as well. Everything seems a little cooler in the case suprisingly, and although i'm not sure that i'll be sticking with the Macron, MBM 5 is reporting a clean bill of system health. I'll see how it goes. Thanks for the input. Pikey

Hi I suspect the issues with AV 2001 and XP have been flogged to death here recently, but i've not seen this particular hiccup covered before. I installed AV 2001 onto XP Professional 2600 and then installed the sym.event patch after AV 2001's repeated failures to start. So far so good, and everything including liveupdate ran smoothly for a day or so, downloading and installing updates etc. Then, AV "started" failing to run at startup, with a message that it had been disabled. Ok fine, but weirdly it would kick in after about 2 mins uptime. Losing patience fast I "uninstalled" AV, ran disk cleanup and regcleaner and reinstalled. Same thing was happening. After removing "all traces" (ha!) again, I found that explorer.exe was having problems such as, I couldn't get right-click on System Properties or Local Disk, at least not instantly. The system would hang and then display the properties box after about the same time as it would take AV 2001 to kick in after a startup. I'm a tad annoyed as I have a good six months of updates left on my registration, and although it's no biggy to go out and get AV 2002, I wonder had anyone experienced issues like this with AV 2001? I understand there could be problems installing the sym.event patch AFTER installing AV 2001. I have no AV on my system at the moment having resorted to a clean reinstall, but I note that the recent XP compatibilty patch (which i've downloaded) has AV 2001 support built in. Can I safely reinstall AV 2001 with this in mind, or is it not worth the risk given the previous problems? I can't face another reformat. Any opinions? Cheers Pikey

Well, thanks for the reply Alecstaar, but i'd really like to hear from people who have got the darned thing running happily under XP, i'm looking for a more battle-hardened/diagnostic approach really. I don't see why it shouldn't work now, particularily with the pre-install update from Microsoft so i'd like to canvas a few more opinions before taking the plunge. This may seem horribly trivial when I can go out and get the latest and greatest for about £30, but I will not be defeated so easily! Anymore input folks? Pikey

Thanks isaacg, those drivers work great! I was pulling my hair out over the default XP Voodoo 3 drivers - just like going back in time to Windows 2000 - but these work great! Thanks man! Pikey

Hi all This is a weird one... I've just installed XP RC2 on my system, and I can no longer right click on 'all programs' to sort by name or access properties. In fact I can't do **** with right click on the program menu. When my housemate logs on to her limited account she can do this, but I, as admin, can't. It DID work, and as i'm still finding my way with this glorious OS, I can't recall messing with any defaults. Any ideas as to what's up and/or how to sort this? It's pissing me off! Cheers

Hi all Well, I thought i'd indulge myself after buying the box set of movies, and well, Lara's just not the same is she? So I went out and got 'Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine' expecting to while away the soggy British summer with globetrotting adventure. But damn it. I am having problems! I have Windows 2000, SP'd and compatibility patched to the hilt, but Indy seems mighty shaky to me. Mainly, I am rewarded with a blank screen at pivotal moments of action. It's cheesing me off. Is Indy a dead loss on Windows 2000, or am i looking at a dual install (again!) with Win98 to fulfill my dreams? I have the Infernal patch BTW, but I can't trust to involving myself in this game if it's going to putter out when it feels like it. Any ideas? Cheers Pikey

Hi, I've just installed another 256MB of 133 SDRAM (i now have 512MB) and the page file seems to be at the same level of usage as it was when I was running 256MB. No surprises there, I guess. I'd like to reduce the file size to make better use of the extra RAM, but what would be the recommended size, in your opinion, to extract better performance? I have physical memory to burn right now. Currently it is set at 384MB min/max, as it was when I was running 256MB RAM. Any advice on this, because although the system is a lot faster in general, I would like to safely minimize the Windows 2000 page use. Would such a modification really yield better performance? Calling on your wisdom..... Cheers

Uykucu, Thanks for the reply, but the page file IS being used, as reported by Task Manager, and more graphically, by Free Meter. It seems to be about tandem with the physical memory usage (roughly). I must admit, I am not a techie, so what does this mean in real world terms? Does Windows 2000 just allocate as reported and not use it, or am I suffering from having a large page file? (I reset it to 768MB in light of your advice, though performance has not changed since the 384MB setting) I just want to optimize the amount of free RAM that I have. Cheers

Hi all I've just run a search on this and found nothing particularly telling, so here goes. I've just 'upgraded' from 256MB PC100 SDRAM (in 128/64/64 modules) to a stick of 256MB PC133 SDRAM. Now, I have noticed a slight improvement in performance, but I could be imagining it! My question is, was the upgrade worthwhile in terms of pure speed alone, or would I be better off forsaking the speed increase and making use of the leftover 128 and 64MB PC100 sticks and pumping it up to 448MB for a better setup, and would it be 'safe' to do so? I am running Windows 2000 Pro and perhaps could use the extra memory. I guess it's a question of quantity vs quality really, but does the speed increase of PC133 justify not using the leftover RAM? (It's a VIA KT133 chipset mobo BTW, w/an 1Ghz Athlon) Any opinions? Cheers

Ok, I'm looking to the future here for a possible upgrade when XP finally hits the stores. I'm running Windows 2000 Pro at the moment, mainly for the stability and superb memory management. A simple question to guide my upgrade to either XP Home or Pro (amongst many others), but does the Home Edition ship with a Task Manager? Cheers

Ok, I have the application compatibility update running on my system, but so far I can only run chosen games with a Win95 layer when logged on as administrator. I would like to be able to run them under my own Power User account, but no compatibility option appears, and even though certain games are designated as compatible under admins, they won't run under any other account. What am i missing?

I presume that i have either asked the dumbest question in the world, or you genius's out there have no idea either? It's no biggy really, just an annoyance. Still no answers? Cheers (in anticipation....)

Hot air rises. One side of you hard drive has a protective cover, yes? Well....

Hi I recently reverted to Windows 2000 after running a Win98/Win2K dual boot. I have a damn near brand new 30GB IBM hard disk, and i used the IBM drive fitness tools to run a LLF to clear the drive in preparation for the NTFS format. However, on NTFS formatting 92% of the disk it got stuck in a kind of repetetive groove. So, i rebooted and ran the fitness test which detected "bad sectors". I then ran the wipe and this "corrected" the bad sectors, and then allowed the NTFS format and install of Windows 2000. Since installing SP2 on my system, the bad sector issue reappeared when i attempted a defrag with Norton Speedisk. I ran a full check disk which ran into the same 'repetetive groove' syndrome, and ,then reported that it had corrected three bad clusters on my disk. All is now fine (again), but does this mean that i should be gearing up for another hard disk purchase? Is my disk going rotten? I've only had it for three months! Any opinions would be greatly appreciated! Cheers