thymios

Well, lots of problems to begin from something. The problem is my old hardware that does not pickup with XP very well.For example my Voodoo 3 gfx card with drivers releashed by coders and not 3dfx, the old motherboards controllers (based on 440BX chipset), the old SB AWE64 soundcard. I had a lot of crashes, BSOD's and in general system performance was not as good as in win2k.That's why i rolled back to win2k and my mind is free again. The other system i have back home is a brand new PC built from scrach with new hw, and XP runs smooth as silk. I guess that MS created a new system for new and powerfull computers. Let's not forget as well that XP is out in the market around 3 months now while win2k is going towards SP3, almost 3 years after it's release. Patience is a virtue!

I've got this: http://www.r-tt.com/?01G024.There is a demo download but it only recovers files under 64K which is pathetic.How big was your file anyway? Also here http://www.winternals.com/products/repairandrecovery/filerestore.asp is another program it might work. There are a lot of programs that do the job after all but none of them is free, and the demo versions only recover small partitions of the file (less than 50K), and the full versions range from 50$ upwards, so it all depends on how crucial your work was. Good luck though.

I'm quite interested in your post, cause i screwed files like this myself a lot of times and i never sat down to find a solution, but i "cried" instead! First of all a bit on NTFS. NTFS is NOT using 512-byte sectors like FAT32(that's why NU is unable to work on it).Instead it's using clusters(or allocation units). In both systems if the disk writes on the space that it's marked as deleted(yes the file is on the disk physically, but it's marked as deleted), then the old files are 100% non-recoverable. Your problem is wright now that as time passes the chances that your HD will write on those spaces, gets bigger. I actually found this program (http://www.finaldata.com/english/product/product1_16.htm) but you have to pay around 100$ to get it, and i don't think there is a trial version, and i don't think it really worths it(that's depends on how valuable was your files of course) Sorry if i confused you in my last message about the allocation tables, i hope now you understand what i meant. If i found something new in the next hour i'll let you know.

That's bad to hear.BTW i thought you were using NTFS.In FAT32 Norton Utilities can actually recover lost files that are physically on the disk, but only if the program is installed before you delete them( or so i think).NU doesn't have this support for NTFS exactly because NTFS is not using allocation tables.

If you pressed Shift+Delete then i am sorry to tell you but you lost your tutorial update. If you just deleted it, come on, it's on the recycle bin

Well in this case.it's definatelly not normal.I assume that you have defragged your HD and i also believe that you have installed the latest drivers for the external controller. One last thing you could do, is actually connect your HD to the mainboard controller and see what will be the reaction of the system then. Leave the second controller as it is(disabled) it does not matter for this test.Just unplug the DVD and try putting the HD on, alone.

Hi everyone, i have a friend that his computer runs on a quite slow hard drive. The celeron-500 on his machine is enough running DivX movies. The problem is that when he runs a playback program(any player including WMP and MicroDVD), in order to watch a movie, some physical and some virtual memory is allocated to that program.There's the problem now. Since his hard drive is slow, it cannot keep up with a a smooth playback, unless he turns the process priority of the player to real time! I was wondering if there is any way that you can tell a program in win2k to run ONLY in physical memory, thus ignoring VM and hence the H/D. Any suggestions are much appreciated.Thanks for reading.

come on people don't let me down!I always found an answer on this forum(maybe i don't have a solution yet because this problem is not on my system ).

Let's specify something crucial here.When Win2k boots, it takes way more time for the disk to stop when the desktop show on your monitor, compared to win98/ME and winXP.In my system it takes around 20-30 sec to stop, and i can see from the task manager that the service that causes this is the winlogon mainly and the executable of services(services.exe). CoolHand if your computer does that, then it's perfectly normal. Now if it does the problem all the time, after the boot-up and after the system is booted for more than 5 minutes or so, then you have a problem, and i told you that an easy solution is to see what services causes this annoying problem and let us know to see if we can help you out.

Once you boot, open task manager, go to processes tab and sort the processes by CPU usage(dispalyed as CPU on the manager). See which service is using the CPU (and obviously the H/D) and then you might have a clue of what is going on. Let us know of the outcome.

There are many services that run under the name Services.exe. What you can do for a start is open your services from control panel--> administrative tools, sort the services by status(running or not) and then try and see which services are logged as services.exe by double clicking the service names and looking at the "Path to executable" line to see if it is logged as "services.exe". Note down the services that log under that name, and then try to see what is going on on your system startup. For example Plug and Play, DHCP, and DNS client are logged as services.exe. Check you network status and anything related to these services (and more that you will find). Write back if you need any help.

It's probably the first time i see a new release of a program being way worst than the previous one!ACDSee 3.1 is miles better(even if it has nothing to do with your problem nz).

I just realised that when i go to the power schemes on power options, there's nothing you can select.All the schemes are gone, you can't select anything nor you can adjust the timers(it saws nothing and if you click on them it does nothing!). However my monitor enters the low power state it 10 minutes(specified from me from some other time). Any help appreciated.

Thanks for your help clutch.I did change the drivers of my video card a couple of weeks ago, but i only checked the power options today.So i guess it was there all this time but i never noticed it.It's not a big problem for me since it still has the settings i previously set, so it's cool.I have a Voodoo 3, and as you can imagine i have to rely on drivers made by coders, and not 3df-vidia! Thanks for your time.

system restore also works when you press F8 during boot and choose "last known good configuration".Then it will give you a list of available dates.

I downloaded the evaluation version of TweakXP.Assides the several tweaks that are useless for me, most of the things you can do yourself from the registry. Take a look at http://www.xp-erience.org/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=14

That's a stupid problem i had with my laptop and win2k.I don't remember for sure what i did to fix it, but i think i enabled APM support from power options(APM tab).Have you tried that?

You're in the wrong forum mate. look at www.divx-digest.com www.divx.com www.doom9.org you'll find loads of programs and guides on how to create DivX.

XP has a hell of a lot better tool for that, which is active by default and it's called system restore.It takes snapshots of your system's registry and critical info when it's healthy and you can roll back anytime to a previous "healthy" state by restoring it.You can actually make a snapshot by yourself.mun system restore from Accessories-->System Tools and find out more for yourself. If you are already aware of that feature, and just need to backup the registry on a disk, then to tell you the truth i never tried it on XP and i don't know if there is such a function.

First of all i have to say that it's perfectly normal for each of us to have different opinions.It's just a conversation we are doing and i am not trying to convince anybody that one system is better than the other. Quote: Is this the only chipset for AMD based motherboards? Hardly. AMD chipsets, SiS, ALi, there are several other alternatives. Ronin I respect your experience and i understand that you worked on a lot of systems throughout the years. What i am saying about AMD and their motherboards(any including VIA) is based on things that users compain about.I've got friends that complain, i've seen numerous posts here complaining about VIA or AMD, and i've built myself quite a lot of systems, concluding that Intel processors and Intel based motherboards are state of the art in terms of STABILITY and never gave me or anyone else i know problems. Quote: Originally posted by RoninCS From the KT133 to the KT266A, I've been satisfied with the results. Why does VIA put out updates? To enhance the performance, for one. I don't have to remind you the bummer of VIA's apollo pro 133, turning to apollo Pro 133A in order to avoid possible hanging from the poor customers who purchased the first(i remind you the refund policy of VIA for the pro 133 motherboards). Quote: Originally posted by RoninCS You brought up the speed of RAM. RAMBUS latency is hellaciously slow in real world applications, as well as games. It's not a gamers machine, and Intel shot themselves in the foot by going with RAMBUS. 400MHz FSB? It runs slower than a 133. I suggest you check your benchmarks about that.And don't tell me that benchmarks are synthetic and don't represent the real thing cause i am going to tell you the same exactly think about the CPU and FPU benchmarks you posted. And one last thing.Wait for a while when applications will fully support the SSE2 instructions of the P4 and then do some tests again. P4 is a future product and right now it only shows a small amount of it's real potential.You want me to talk about Lightwave? 3dStudio Max? Bryce? Director? and other processing hungry programs that users will prefer to run them on a P4 machine (if they can't afford to buy a professional machine like a Silicon Graphics) rather than an AMD. That's all for now, and don't misunderstand me, there's nothing personal, i'm just saying my opinion. Take care of yourself.

Further to my previous post... People vote for your favourite defrag tool in win2k/XP. (sorry if i am not listing your favourite one, but you can vote on "other program" option). Thnx.

Well windows 2k and XP built-in defrag tool is a light version of diskeeper, with limited functionality(no boot time defrag, no scheduling, no MFT defrag).It's even recommended by MS to buy another defrag tool for this kind of operations.

RoninCS. I wouldn't have a reason to disagree with you about the power of thunderbird processors. What concerns me though about AMD's processors(and trust me i don't have any reason at all to support Intel) is the lack of faith i have towards VIA chipsets.If there is a VIA based motherboard that really kicks then why not use AMD. But since most VIA's chipsets are crap it's obvious that many users including me will stick to Intel for the simple reason of Intel chipset motherboards that 90% rocks big time. And something last.Some people care a lot about memory speed. You haven't included in your benchmark screenshots the memory benchmark. That's were P4 is almost 2 times faster than AMD. I know that DDR is way cheaper that RDRAM but some people care about that. I do video rendering that takes CPU to it's limits and needs fast memory. I tried it on AMD's with DDR and i didn't get the same results that i have in P4's.I mean try and encode a full resolution movie using for exampe DiVX codec and then try to open a program (even calculator!) when you have AMD(not a good idea at all, almost 99% sure the stupid VIA m/board will fail and a crash is imminent). That's all, once again i am saying clearrly that I am really glad that AMD exists and that it's kicking Intel's @ss every now and then, otherwise a CPU would cost 2000$ by now.It's good to have competition on the market.

OK i understand now.Look i am a 100% convinced that it's not the hard drive that it's doind all this.No way. So i suggest to try and do the following as an ultimate solution: 1) Upgrade your BIOS(sometimes some OS fail on some m/boards-seen that a lot in win2k) 2) check the drivers for your winTV and the SB Audigy cards since they're the only ones you installed yourself. As is said before IRQ_LESS_OR_EQUAL BSOD is usually hardware problem caused by incompatible driver, settings etc. So you should try and work this out. If you are patient then remove the WinTV and the sound card from your system (uninstall the software first) and work without it, so you can test it out and see if these are the problems. This way you're eliminating one by one the possible cause of the BSOD.

I believe that XP will saw it's full potential after a couple of SP are releashed, thus fixing all the incompatibility problems that it has.I was using win2k for a couple of years, and it was hard to convince myself to upgrade to XP.In general win2k is faster than XP (and i don't mean faster in terms of booting or anthing like this, i mean it in terms of multitasking and heavy load use). I am quite happy with XP since it's much lighter than 2k but it still needs work to be done.But i think that after 10 years MS is getting somewhere.