Is Intel 440 Chipset Compatible with XP Pro?

Discussion in 'Gigabyte' started by guy2003, Aug 14, 2003.

  1. guy2003

    guy2003 Guest

    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.
     
    guy2003, Aug 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. guy2003

    Hank Oredson Guest

    This system has a 440BX motherboard and is running XP Home.
    Have one other system with 440BX also running XP Home.
    384 RAM is fine, in fact that it what this system has.
    However your disk free space is way too small!
    Perhaps add a third drive, or replace one or both of your existing drives.

    A fairly good rule for a fast system is "Disks not much more than half full."

    --

    ... Hank

    Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net
    W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net
     
    Hank Oredson, Aug 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. guy2003

    daytripper Guest

    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, Aug 14, 2003
    #3
  4. guy2003

    Gibbylinks Guest

    There's not much point in moving the pagefile. It would still be on the same
    physical Hard Drive and could slow the system down having to move from one
    partition to the other all the time . Better getting 2nd drive and put it on
    that.

    Paul
     
    Gibbylinks, Aug 14, 2003
    #4
  5. guy2003

    Tim Guest

    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




     
    Tim, Aug 14, 2003
    #5
  6. guy2003

    Yves Thomas Guest

    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
     
    Yves Thomas, Aug 14, 2003
    #6
  7. guy2003

    Mike Smith Guest

    It's not a matter of speed - later versions of NT (i.e. 2K, XP) complain
    if the pagefile isn't big enough.
     
    Mike Smith, Aug 14, 2003
    #7
  8. guy2003

    John Guest

    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.
     
    John, Aug 14, 2003
    #8
  9. guy2003

    John Guest

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


     
    John, Aug 14, 2003
    #9
  10. Well, it used to be doable back in the Dos/Win3.1x days.... but then
    we had Microsoft's idea of progress and so ...

    --
    L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
    Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
     
    The little lost angel, Aug 14, 2003
    #10
  11. guy2003

    Tim Guest

    To move an application the correct way. De-install then re-install in the
    new location - reapply any updates / service packs etc. when finished.

    The reasons people overlook why you can't just move the files are the
    following:

    Shortcuts - they point to there the programs and working directories are,
    registry - any program that has Activex and other 'controls' will record
    them in the registry along with the path to the files
    registry - programs will often record information about where files and
    databases are in the registry in 'private' places.

    They are probably the main ones, but are more than enough to break peoples
    ability to run most programs.

    Moving apps by deinstalling and reinstalling is not difficult, just time
    consuming. However some 3rd party programs have setup parameters stored in
    the registry or database files and without going through the proper
    installation routine + setup you may break things. This is why I move easy
    to move apps such as MS Office, Visual Studio, MS software in general.

    - Tim

     
    Tim, Aug 14, 2003
    #11
  12. Gibbylinks rambled on in microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:
    Set the page file to both partitions as microsoft recommends.
     
    Black Baptist, Aug 14, 2003
    #12
  13. guy2003

    chrisv Guest

    No problem. It's the top posting I can't forgive.
     
    chrisv, Aug 15, 2003
    #13
  14. guy2003

    chrisv Guest

    135 lines for that. Huh.
     
    chrisv, Aug 15, 2003
    #14
  15. guy2003

    John Guest

    Context



     
    John, Aug 16, 2003
    #15
  16. guy2003

    daytripper Guest

    149 lines for that. Huh.
     
    daytripper, Aug 16, 2003
    #16
  17. Alexander Grigoriev, Aug 18, 2003
    #17
    1. Advertisements

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 (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.