• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Computer Freezes up at Log On screen in Windows XP

K

klafert

Flightless Bird
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

Flightless Bird
klafert wrote:
> 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
 
K

klafert

Flightless Bird
Yes a 1 MB chip I still have the old one which is a 1 MB

"C" wrote:

> klafert wrote:
> > 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
> .
>
 
K

klafert

Flightless Bird
You think I need both ?

"C" wrote:

> klafert wrote:
> > 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

C

Flightless Bird
klafert wrote:
> You think I need both ?
>
> "C" wrote:
>
>> klafert wrote:
>>> 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
>> .
>>

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.

--
C
 
G

Greg Russell

Flightless Bird
"klafert" <klafert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9951DDF1-5107-4CD7-981E-5665EAC697E1@microsoft.com...

> Yes a 1 MB chip I still have the old one which is a 1 MB

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

Alias

Flightless Bird
Greg Russell wrote:
> "klafert" <klafert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9951DDF1-5107-4CD7-981E-5665EAC697E1@microsoft.com...
>
>> Yes a 1 MB chip I still have the old one which is a 1 MB
>
> 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.

--
Alias
 
G

Greg Russell

Flightless Bird
"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hovr84$9cf$2@news.eternal-september.org...

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

Flightless Bird
Greg Russell wrote:
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hovr84$9cf$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>> Billy-Boy Gates stated some years ago that nobody needs more than 640K of
>>> memory.
>> And when he said it, it was true.
>
> No, it most certainly wasn't, and people like you will believe _anything_
> that Billy tells them.
>
> I was running mathematical models at the time that simply couldn't be run
> with that little of memory, so they were compiled and run on 32-bit systems
> such as SunOS. The very numerous "himem" 3rd-party programs to extend the
> memory beyond the Billy-mandated 640K barrier were a drain on cpu cycles, as
> well as a significant source of additional "bugs" beyond the inherent M$
> ones.
>
>

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

--
Alias
 
D

db

Flightless Bird
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

>
>

"klafert" <klafert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:9951DDF1-5107-4CD7-981E-5665EAC697E1@microsoft.com...
> Yes a 1 MB chip I still have the old one which is a 1 MB
>
> "C" wrote:
>
>> klafert wrote:
>> > 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
>> .
>>
 
G

Greg Russell

Flightless Bird
In news:hovt2b$d53$1@news.eternal-september.org,
Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> typed:

> 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

Flightless Bird
Greg Russell wrote:

> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hovr84$9cf$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>>>Billy-Boy Gates stated some years ago that nobody needs more than 640K of
>>>memory.
>>
>>And when he said it, it was true.
>
>
> No, it most certainly wasn't, and people like you will believe _anything_
> that Billy tells them.
>
> I was running mathematical models at the time that simply couldn't be run
> with that little of memory, so they were compiled and run on 32-bit systems
> such as SunOS. The very numerous "himem" 3rd-party programs to extend the
> memory beyond the Billy-mandated 640K barrier were a drain on cpu cycles, as
> well as a significant source of additional "bugs" beyond the inherent M$
> ones.
>


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

Flightless Bird
In news:%23M0oM4P0KHA.3676@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> typed:

> The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...

No, it was an 8086.
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

Flightless Bird
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:12:07 -0700, "Greg Russell"
<grussell@invalid.con> wrote:

> In news:%23M0oM4P0KHA.3676@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
> Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> typed:
>
> > The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
>
> No, it was an 8086.



Sorry, but that's not correct. It was an 8088.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
G

Greg Russell

Flightless Bird
In news:8obar5h4gqbu5i764k11d2qrmajlu46tps@4ax.com,
Ken Blake, MVP <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:

>>> The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
>>
>> No, it was an 8086.
>
> 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.

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

> In news:8obar5h4gqbu5i764k11d2qrmajlu46tps@4ax.com,
> Ken Blake, MVP<kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
>
>>>> The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
>>> No, it was an 8086.
>> 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.
>
>

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.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
T

Tim Slattery

Flightless Bird
Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Then you'll have to tell IBM that they are wrong.
>http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_birth.html

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.

--
Tim Slattery
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
 
B

Bob I

Flightless Bird
Greg Russell wrote:

> In news:8obar5h4gqbu5i764k11d2qrmajlu46tps@4ax.com,
> Ken Blake, MVP <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
>
>
>>>>The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
>>>
>>>No, it was an 8086.
>>
>>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.
>
>

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top