Computer Freezes up at Log On screen in Windows XP

K

klafert

When I tried to log in - put in my password - my computer freezes up - then
I restart the computer and it lets me log in just fine. The computer runs
fine for the most part but now and then still locks up. Especially when
idle. I changed the ram chip and it is much better but still freezes up at
Log On. Do I need to repair my profile. Seems much better since I changed
out the ram chip - I am using Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3
 
C

C

klafert said:
When I tried to log in - put in my password - my computer freezes up - then
I restart the computer and it lets me log in just fine. The computer runs
fine for the most part but now and then still locks up. Especially when
idle. I changed the ram chip and it is much better but still freezes up at
Log On. Do I need to repair my profile. Seems much better since I changed
out the ram chip - I am using Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3

How many ram sticks do you have, only one?
 
C

C

klafert said:
You think I need both ?

No, although it would be better if the old one isn't bad. Put it in and
see. You might want to put the RAM sticks in and then pull them out and
in a bit to get rid of any corrosion.
 
A

Alias

Greg said:
Billy-Boy Gates stated some years ago that nobody needs more than 640K of
memory.

And when he said it, it was true. I bet he isn't saying it now. BTW,
Billy Boy isn't the man in charge any more. It's Steve Ballmer.
 
G

Greg Russell

And when he said it, it was true.

No, it most certainly wasn't, and people like you will believe _anything_
that Billy tells them.

I was running mathematical models at the time that simply couldn't be run
with that little of memory, so they were compiled and run on 32-bit systems
such as SunOS. The very numerous "himem" 3rd-party programs to extend the
memory beyond the Billy-mandated 640K barrier were a drain on cpu cycles, as
well as a significant source of additional "bugs" beyond the inherent M$
ones.
 
A

Alias

Greg said:
No, it most certainly wasn't, and people like you will believe _anything_
that Billy tells them.

I was running mathematical models at the time that simply couldn't be run
with that little of memory, so they were compiled and run on 32-bit systems
such as SunOS. The very numerous "himem" 3rd-party programs to extend the
memory beyond the Billy-mandated 640K barrier were a drain on cpu cycles, as
well as a significant source of additional "bugs" beyond the inherent M$
ones.

OK, you win. It was true for most people and I bet he isn't saying that now.
 
D

db

I hope you mean you
have 1 gigabyte stick
of ram and not a 1
megabyte of ram.

besides smaller mem chips
are not manufactured in
one megabyte increments.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen
 
G

Greg Russell

In
Alias said:
people like you will believe _anything_ that Billy tells them.

OK, you win.

Don't worry, there are more just like you, and many of them have the last
name of "MVP".

On second thought, *DO* worry.
 
B

Bob I

Greg said:
No, it most certainly wasn't, and people like you will believe _anything_
that Billy tells them.

I was running mathematical models at the time that simply couldn't be run
with that little of memory, so they were compiled and run on 32-bit systems
such as SunOS. The very numerous "himem" 3rd-party programs to extend the
memory beyond the Billy-mandated 640K barrier were a drain on cpu cycles, as
well as a significant source of additional "bugs" beyond the inherent M$
ones.


The 640 kB barrier is an architectural limitation of IBM and IBM PC
compatible PCs. The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, was
able to address 1024 kB (1 MB or 220 bytes), as the chip offered 20
address lines. The lower limit was due to hardware mapping
(memory-mapped I/O):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_memory
 
G

Greg Russell

In
Ken Blake said:
Sorry, but that's not correct. It was an 8088.

I've still got an original IBM PC, and it states right on the processor that
it's an 8086. The 8088 was produced soon after, and I was sorry that I had
rushed into the purchase so soon.
 
T

Terry R.

On 4/1/2010 9:18 PM On a whim, Greg Russell pounded out on the keyboard
In

I've still got an original IBM PC, and it states right on the processor that
it's an 8086. The 8088 was produced soon after, and I was sorry that I had
rushed into the purchase so soon.

You shouldn't have been sorry. The 8086 used a 16 bit data bus and the
8088 used an 8 bit. The early PS/2 were based on the 8086 and ran
faster. The 8088 was Intel's first "dumbing down" of a processor and
they kept that up for along time.

I purchased a TI PC because it ran at 5 MHz as opposed to IBM's 4.77,
and it had 768K of memory and 16 plane graphics as opposed to the 640K
and 8 plane of the IBM PC.


Terry R.
 
T

Tim Slattery

Bob I said:

Hmm... that article quotes Dave Bradley as saying "...We started to
build a prototype to take - by the end of the year - to a then
little-known company called Microsoft." That completely skips the
story of IBMers going to Digital Research first, but missing
connections with Gary Kildall, and then as a second choice going to
Seattle to see Microsoft.

It also says that it had a color monitor with 16 colors! My
recollection - which may well be incomplete - is that we didn't get 16
colors until EGA graphics debuted, years later. Hmm...looking at it
again, it says the monitor had "16 foreground and background colors",
but that "Its graphics were in four colors". I don't remember having
any color until the Hercules cards sometime in the mid-80s.
 
B

Bob I

Greg said:
In


I've still got an original IBM PC, and it states right on the processor that
it's an 8086. The 8088 was produced soon after, and I was sorry that I had
rushed into the purchase so soon.

You got is backward. The "8086" is the better CPU with a 16 bit
processor with an 16 bit external databus while the "8088" 16 bit
processor with only an 8 bit external databus. Also the instruction
queue for the 86 is 6 bytes while the 88 is only 4.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top