various computer problems...
Guest
Posts: n/a
various computer problems...
I seem to be having all sorts of probs with the ole PC recently. Anyone got any ideas?
The box is an AMD K6-2 450 running in an ASUS P5A-B motherboard, 128mb RAM, STB Velocity 4400 AGP graphics card with 16 Mb RAM, and a Soundblaster Live! soundcard. Currently running (sort of) Windows ME, with a dual boot setup for Linux (Mandrake 7.2)
Problems:
When booting, the memory test just keeps repeating over and over (several minutes if left alone).
I have an autoexec.bat file, mainly for the dual-boot setup (as Win ME does not have a DOS command line). Everytime I start the PC, the line [win] which starts windows is corrupted. Sometines the corruption is just garbage, other time it is recognisable (for example once it was part of an email I had been reading). Every time I edit the line to correct it, it is corrupted again on the next startup.
The machine is VERY slow for a 450 (not much faster than my previous chip in the same m/board, an AMD 233). Yes, I did adjust the jumpers!
Some games run VERY slowly, for example Quake gets about 8-10 fps).
I have tried various diagnostic programs (for example Norton SystemWorks) with no results.
Anyone have any ideas?
The box is an AMD K6-2 450 running in an ASUS P5A-B motherboard, 128mb RAM, STB Velocity 4400 AGP graphics card with 16 Mb RAM, and a Soundblaster Live! soundcard. Currently running (sort of) Windows ME, with a dual boot setup for Linux (Mandrake 7.2)
Problems:
When booting, the memory test just keeps repeating over and over (several minutes if left alone).
I have an autoexec.bat file, mainly for the dual-boot setup (as Win ME does not have a DOS command line). Everytime I start the PC, the line [win] which starts windows is corrupted. Sometines the corruption is just garbage, other time it is recognisable (for example once it was part of an email I had been reading). Every time I edit the line to correct it, it is corrupted again on the next startup.
The machine is VERY slow for a 450 (not much faster than my previous chip in the same m/board, an AMD 233). Yes, I did adjust the jumpers!
Some games run VERY slowly, for example Quake gets about 8-10 fps).
I have tried various diagnostic programs (for example Norton SystemWorks) with no results.
Anyone have any ideas?
Good luck! 
Guest
Posts: n/a
Raw Data,
After re-reading your post. Can I ask how big is the hard disk on this machine and how big are the disk partitions? Just a hunch but this may be a possible cause for the machine to be running slow. What do you think Pied Piper?
OzPax1
After re-reading your post. Can I ask how big is the hard disk on this machine and how big are the disk partitions? Just a hunch but this may be a possible cause for the machine to be running slow. What do you think Pied Piper?
OzPax1
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK, I have two drives in this machine. One is a 2 gig drive that got corrupted when installing Win ME... somehow corrupted the FAT. I gather it was while it was converting it from 16 to 32 bit. One of these days I'll download a copy of "Lost and Found" and recover my data.
The drive currently in use is 13.7 Mb, and is divided into the following partitions:
C: 1.97 Mb Windows ME and system stuff
E: 7.43 Mb Programs
F: 318 Mb Windows swapfile
? 2.0 Mb Linux
Any ideas appreciated. It'll only be the 5th time I have installed this completely crappy OS.
Still can't understand why the memory test keeps repeating, I thought that was BIOS rather than OS.
Cheers guys!
The drive currently in use is 13.7 Mb, and is divided into the following partitions:
C: 1.97 Mb Windows ME and system stuff
E: 7.43 Mb Programs
F: 318 Mb Windows swapfile
? 2.0 Mb Linux
Any ideas appreciated. It'll only be the 5th time I have installed this completely crappy OS.
Still can't understand why the memory test keeps repeating, I thought that was BIOS rather than OS.
Cheers guys!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The POST (power on self test) can be disabled in the BIOS. If you are going to have a dedicated swop file partition, it needs to be at least 4 x the system RAM, 128X4=512, and I would say that is the bare minimum, and it needs to be regularly maintained, cleaned up and defragged. Don't know much about ME and due to adverse reports stuck with 98SE. You may need a decent dual boot manager as the boot disk doesn't seem to be doing it for you. Does the Linux OS come with one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, looked at disabling the POST, but would like to know why it is misbehaving (for example is it pointing to a RAM problem).
I use GRUB to manage the dual boot, I don't use floppies at all to manage Linux. GRUB works pretty well, and LILO before it.
I'll have play with the swapfile partition, see if I can improve that.
Cheers!
I use GRUB to manage the dual boot, I don't use floppies at all to manage Linux. GRUB works pretty well, and LILO before it.
I'll have play with the swapfile partition, see if I can improve that.
Cheers!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The POST BIOS test is nothing but a very crude counting of fingers and toes. It does nothing to establish memory integrity & mostly just wastes time. Select "Quick Boot" or whatever your BIOS calls it.
Possibly:
1) Corrupted BIOS - see if you can get an update and flash it (save the original!)
2) Duff memory - try reseating the SIMMS or having them checked.
3) WinME - which I don't know (SE for me) but about which I hear little good. Sounds like the self-repair feature is noticing something that it thinks is amiss in AUTOEXEC and stuffing in random garbage.
4) Maybe ME doesn't like LILO? Maybe ME doesn't like a dual-boot AUTOEXEC/CONFIG? I hear that ME doesn't take kindly to any other OS being around. And will ME (with all it's system self repair files) fit into 1.97GB (I presume you don't mean Mb)?
5) Try another boot manager (you may have to do a "Format/MBR" to remove LiLO)
Possibly:
1) Corrupted BIOS - see if you can get an update and flash it (save the original!)
2) Duff memory - try reseating the SIMMS or having them checked.
3) WinME - which I don't know (SE for me) but about which I hear little good. Sounds like the self-repair feature is noticing something that it thinks is amiss in AUTOEXEC and stuffing in random garbage.
4) Maybe ME doesn't like LILO? Maybe ME doesn't like a dual-boot AUTOEXEC/CONFIG? I hear that ME doesn't take kindly to any other OS being around. And will ME (with all it's system self repair files) fit into 1.97GB (I presume you don't mean Mb)?
5) Try another boot manager (you may have to do a "Format/MBR" to remove LiLO)
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK I'll ditch the POST then.
Windows ME is a disaster, big mistake ever installing it.
I'm not using LILO, using GRUB (bundled with Mandrake 7.2).
Anyway, first off I might remove the utility that gets Win ME to provide a command line, maybe that is partly to blame.
Windows ME is a disaster, big mistake ever installing it.
I'm not using LILO, using GRUB (bundled with Mandrake 7.2).
Anyway, first off I might remove the utility that gets Win ME to provide a command line, maybe that is partly to blame.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think you'll find that dual booting with Linux and ME isn't advisable. When I installed ME on a dual boot machine it came up with a warning that ME wasn't to be used with my Bootmanager software. I'd also say that your partition is a bit small for the OS. I find ME to be fine on both my desktop and Notebook PCs so it's worth persevering! By the way it's pointless using autoexec files in ME as they're obsolete and ignored.
[This message has been edited by Specaircrew (edited 13 April 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Specaircrew (edited 13 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
That's true, but the boot manager needs the autoexec.bat file to enable it to boot into windows... this because ME doesn't support DOS command lines. However, the capability is there in ME to do so, and a small utility "unlocks" the command line- hence the autoexec.bat file.
Frankly, I'd prefer to use Linux and forget windows, but I don't yet understand Linux well enough to go with it.
One thing I will do, is get a new HDD and use larger partitions. Not sure why Windows would need a larger partition than 2 Gb if the Swapfile has its' own dedicated partition... but then I'm no expert, I just partitioned it according to some magazine article that I read a while back.
The kicker is that my Win95 OSR2.1 installation was stable and crash-free, with none of these problems... seriously thinking about going back to that for the time being.
Frankly, I'd prefer to use Linux and forget windows, but I don't yet understand Linux well enough to go with it.
One thing I will do, is get a new HDD and use larger partitions. Not sure why Windows would need a larger partition than 2 Gb if the Swapfile has its' own dedicated partition... but then I'm no expert, I just partitioned it according to some magazine article that I read a while back.
The kicker is that my Win95 OSR2.1 installation was stable and crash-free, with none of these problems... seriously thinking about going back to that for the time being.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Raw Data.
"my Win95 OSR2.1 installation was stable and crash-free, with none of these problems... seriously thinking about going back to that for the time being."
Might be a good idea if you want a dual boot system. Do try to get your hands on WIN 98SE as it has some good mods that WIN 95 doesn't. i.e.properly supported drivers for USB & 32bit formating of the hard drive so you aren't limited to the 2GB partition sizes.
Also try and keep the whole of the Win OS and it's swapfile on one partition, as that is how windows expects to find and manage it.
I would also recomend you having two patitions of roughly equal size. Load windows in the fist and then Linux in the other.
You should see a improvement when you have done the above. Just done a similer job on one of my PC's (an old 166MMX too!!
)and it seems to be running ok.
Good Luck
OzPax1
"my Win95 OSR2.1 installation was stable and crash-free, with none of these problems... seriously thinking about going back to that for the time being."
Might be a good idea if you want a dual boot system. Do try to get your hands on WIN 98SE as it has some good mods that WIN 95 doesn't. i.e.properly supported drivers for USB & 32bit formating of the hard drive so you aren't limited to the 2GB partition sizes.
Also try and keep the whole of the Win OS and it's swapfile on one partition, as that is how windows expects to find and manage it.
I would also recomend you having two patitions of roughly equal size. Load windows in the fist and then Linux in the other.
You should see a improvement when you have done the above. Just done a similer job on one of my PC's (an old 166MMX too!!
)and it seems to be running ok.Good Luck
OzPax1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Win98SE is my preference too - more features and more stable than 95 was, and well-tested unlike the various 2000/ME releases.
I'm one of those people who considers Uncle Bill's offerings to be "beta" unitl they've been around a couple of years and everyone else has got most of the bugzz out
I really think you should consider "downgrading" unless there's something in ME that is vital to you.
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
I'm one of those people who considers Uncle Bill's offerings to be "beta" unitl they've been around a couple of years and everyone else has got most of the bugzz out
I really think you should consider "downgrading" unless there's something in ME that is vital to you.
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The only thing keeping ME on the machine is the annoyance I will feel if I have wasted £79 on a product that doesn't work as advertised, corrupted the FAT on one of my drives, and generally makes my life miserable. I reckon all Bills software should be regarded as Beta until it has been superseded!!
On another note, I had heard somewhere that Win 95, when updated to OSR2.1, had more functionality than 98SE does? OSR2.1 included USB support and some other stuff... I'll see if I can recall what it had that 98SE didn't...
On another note, I had heard somewhere that Win 95, when updated to OSR2.1, had more functionality than 98SE does? OSR2.1 included USB support and some other stuff... I'll see if I can recall what it had that 98SE didn't...
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have heard various stories about this. There are some utilities out there that purport to do that, but others say that nothing shoort of 24 hours in a special rig will do it. Me, I don't know! However, my memory was bought in two lots (two 64Mb SDRAMS), and I just wonder if they are working OK together... I guess this is one of the perils of the "self-upgrade" approach...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Raw Data,
I think you might have a RAM problem. The BIOS / POST test occurs before the OS gets involved at all.
I can only suggest trying a mate's RAM (ooer, missus!) to see if there is any improvement.
It is also possible that the main processor is not working correctly. I built a computer (this one, in fact) a few years back. Initially it had all sorts of problems and cost me a lot of time and expense until I discovered my new AMD was a bad one and replaced it.
Best of luck.
I think you might have a RAM problem. The BIOS / POST test occurs before the OS gets involved at all.
I can only suggest trying a mate's RAM (ooer, missus!) to see if there is any improvement.
It is also possible that the main processor is not working correctly. I built a computer (this one, in fact) a few years back. Initially it had all sorts of problems and cost me a lot of time and expense until I discovered my new AMD was a bad one and replaced it.
Best of luck.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It looks like you have a number of probably unconnected problems here.
If the memory check is repeating over and over it points to a hardware problem - the PC hasn't even looked at the hardisk at that stage, so software is irrelevant. The check that is disabled in your BIOS is probably the long check, the PC will still do a quick check regardless. It would be worth enabling the long check to see if it throws up any problems. It could be a motherboard or CPU problem at that stage, so don't go throwing money at RAM based on that test alone. The next step is to substitute components one by one and observe the results, or to use a commercial diagnostic program on it.
Given your sterling services to the wannabe community, I'm sure you could find a grateful IT professional / ATPL wannabe who lives locally to come round and lend a hand (ooh, er, I was dangerously close to volunteering there!).
Turning to the software side of things, bear in mind that ME requires a lot more resources than 95/98. Although you have a reasonable spec PC it will run noticeably slower on ME. Unless you need the features Windows 98SE or Windows 2000 Professional would be a better bet.
Can't comment on your dual booting woes, as I am a Micro$oft disciple and am not versed in the black arts of Linux :-)
Seriously, if you need a hand give me a shout, I'm just up the road.
If the memory check is repeating over and over it points to a hardware problem - the PC hasn't even looked at the hardisk at that stage, so software is irrelevant. The check that is disabled in your BIOS is probably the long check, the PC will still do a quick check regardless. It would be worth enabling the long check to see if it throws up any problems. It could be a motherboard or CPU problem at that stage, so don't go throwing money at RAM based on that test alone. The next step is to substitute components one by one and observe the results, or to use a commercial diagnostic program on it.
Given your sterling services to the wannabe community, I'm sure you could find a grateful IT professional / ATPL wannabe who lives locally to come round and lend a hand (ooh, er, I was dangerously close to volunteering there!).
Turning to the software side of things, bear in mind that ME requires a lot more resources than 95/98. Although you have a reasonable spec PC it will run noticeably slower on ME. Unless you need the features Windows 98SE or Windows 2000 Professional would be a better bet.
Can't comment on your dual booting woes, as I am a Micro$oft disciple and am not versed in the black arts of Linux :-)
Seriously, if you need a hand give me a shout, I'm just up the road.
