Computer Freezes up at Log On screen in Windows XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter klafert
  • Start date Start date
K

klafert

Guest
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
 
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
 
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

> .

>
 
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

> .

>
 
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
 
"klafert" 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.
 
Greg Russell wrote:

> "klafert" 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
 
"Alias" 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.
 
Greg Russell wrote:

> "Alias" 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
 
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·´¯`·...¸>

DatabaseBen, Retired Professional

- Systems Analyst

- Database Developer

- Accountancy

- Veteran of the Armed Forces

- Microsoft Partner

- @hotmail.com

~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen



>

>



"klafert" 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

>> .

>>
 
In news:hovt2b$d53$1@news.eternal-september.org,

Alias 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.
 
Greg Russell wrote:



> "Alias" 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
 
In news:%23M0oM4P0KHA.3676@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,

Bob I typed:



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



No, it was an 8086.
 
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:12:07 -0700, "Greg Russell"

wrote:



> In news:%23M0oM4P0KHA.3676@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,

> Bob I 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
 
In news:8obar5h4gqbu5i764k11d2qrmajlu46tps@4ax.com,

Ken Blake, MVP 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.
 
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 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.
 
Bob I 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
 
Greg Russell wrote:



> In news:8obar5h4gqbu5i764k11d2qrmajlu46tps@4ax.com,

> Ken Blake, MVP 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.
Back
Top