Is Intel 440 Chipset Compatible with XP Pro?

[guy2003]

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.

[Hank Oredson]

"guy2003" <guy2003@NOSPAMnetscape.net> wrote in message
news:smkljv0sc780ifeq4eismelsr2ujmkkgrr@4ax.com... 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.

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

[daytripper]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:03:29 GMT, guy2003 <guy2003@NOSPAMnetscape.net> wrote:
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 VirtualMemory, etc." indication at log on.According to Q316528 from Microsoft, I may need to download the IntelApplication Accelerator. However, Intel doesn't currently provideone for the 440 Chipset Family (actually, I don't know if they everdid). If they did, does anyone know where I could find an old archivedversion?My hard drive was initially partitioned into C & D, and I have only941 MB free space avaialable on C where my applications reside, and2.94 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 discussinganother root cause for this Limited Virtual Memory problem -- butwithout succes there either.Finally, I have 384 MB of RAM.Any help would be very much appreciated here. Thanks in advance.

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

[Gibbylinks]

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

"Gary" <gecoffin@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:u8d%23PDgYDHA.1004@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... Get a bigger hard drive..,,,way too small or try moving your page file to the D drive Gary "guy2003" <guy2003@NOSPAMnetscape.net> wrote in message news:smkljv0sc780ifeq4eismelsr2ujmkkgrr@4ax.com... 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.

[Tim Kowal]

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




"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u9pljvchgh30dau8t3ll34qdok62slt6l5@4ax.com... On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:03:29 GMT, guy2003 <guy2003@NOSPAMnetscape.net>
wrote: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 VirtualMemory, etc." indication at log on.According to Q316528 from Microsoft, I may need to download the IntelApplication Accelerator. However, Intel doesn't currently provideone for the 440 Chipset Family (actually, I don't know if they everdid). If they did, does anyone know where I could find an old archivedversion?My hard drive was initially partitioned into C & D, and I have only941 MB free space avaialable on C where my applications reside, and2.94 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 discussinganother root cause for this Limited Virtual Memory problem -- butwithout succes there either.Finally, I have 384 MB of RAM.Any help would be very much appreciated here. Thanks in advance. 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

[K a h K e e N a n g]

guy2003 wrote: 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.

I believed there will be shutdown problem if there is no ACPI for this older
board. Try updating bios.

--�
To deter unsolicited reply, pls do not click default
"REPLY" which is a anti-spam non-existance email
For genuine email correspondance, pls copy & paste
accordingly dwkk@myrealbox.com

[Yves Thomas]

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 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 "daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message news:u9pljvchgh30dau8t3ll34qdok62slt6l5@4ax.com... On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:03:29 GMT, guy2003 <guy2003@NOSPAMnetscape.net> wrote: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 VirtualMemory, etc." indication at log on.According to Q316528 from Microsoft, I may need to download the IntelApplication Accelerator. However, Intel doesn't currently provideone for the 440 Chipset Family (actually, I don't know if they everdid). If they did, does anyone know where I could find an old archivedversion?My hard drive was initially partitioned into C & D, and I have only941 MB free space avaialable on C where my applications reside, and2.94 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 discussinganother root cause for this Limited Virtual Memory problem -- butwithout succes there either.Finally, I have 384 MB of RAM.Any help would be very much appreciated here. Thanks in advance. 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

[Mike Smith]

Gibbylinks wrote:
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.

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

[John]

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.


"guy2003" <guy2003@NOSPAMnetscape.net> wrote in message
news:smkljv0sc780ifeq4eismelsr2ujmkkgrr@4ax.com... 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.

[John]

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


"Yves Thomas" <natifnatal34@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:17e63c69.0308141034.4db22920@posting.google.com... 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 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 "daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message news:u9pljvchgh30dau8t3ll34qdok62slt6l5@4ax.com... On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:03:29 GMT, guy2003 <guy2003@NOSPAMnetscape.net> wrote: >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. 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

[The little lost angel]

On 14 Aug 2003 11:34:33 -0700, natifnatal34@netscape.net (Yves Thomas)
wrote:
For example, could one just take the directory where an application'sfiles are located and moving that entire directory to a new drive?

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

[Tim Kowal]

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

"Yves Thomas" <natifnatal34@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:17e63c69.0308141034.4db22920@posting.google.com... 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 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 "daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message news:u9pljvchgh30dau8t3ll34qdok62slt6l5@4ax.com... On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:03:29 GMT, guy2003 <guy2003@NOSPAMnetscape.net> wrote: >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. 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

[Black Baptist]

Gibbylinks rambled on in microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:
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"Gary" <gecoffin@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:u8d%23PDgYDHA.1004@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... Get a bigger hard drive..,,,way too small or try moving your page file to the D drive Gary "guy2003" <guy2003@NOSPAMnetscape.net> wrote in message news:smkljv0sc780ifeq4eismelsr2ujmkkgrr@4ax.com... 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.

Set the page file to both partitions as microsoft recommends.

[Eric Gisin]

Nope, MS recommends pagefile on all drives, but only one per drive.

"Black Baptist" <pray@the.church.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93D7CAF74CAEDok@Letuspray...

| Set the page file to both partitions as microsoft recommends.

[chrisv]

On 14 Aug 2003 11:34:33 -0700, natifnatal34@netscape.net (Yves Thomas)
wrote:
Forgive me if this is elementary.

No problem. It's the top posting I can't forgive.

[chrisv]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:26:51 +1000, "John"
<knight_js.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
You'd think that sort of thing would be built right into the OS wouldn'tyou. But we're talking Microsoft here...

135 lines for that. Huh.

[John]

Context


"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:pqlpjv4hn90iij1569coh2ieq6thrii8ed@4ax.com... On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:26:51 +1000, "John" <knight_js.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote: 135 lines for that. Huh. You'd think that sort of thing would be built right into the OS wouldn't you. But we're talking Microsoft here...


"Yves Thomas" <natifnatal34@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:17e63c69.0308141034.4db22920@posting.google.com... 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 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 "daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message news:u9pljvchgh30dau8t3ll34qdok62slt6l5@4ax.com... On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:03:29 GMT, guy2003 <guy2003@NOSPAMnetscape.net> wrote: >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. 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]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:46:30 +1000, "John" <knight_js.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in messagenews:pqlpjv4hn90iij1569coh2ieq6thrii8ed@4ax.com... On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:26:51 +1000, "John" <knight_js.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote: 135 lines for that. Huh.Context

149 lines for that. Huh.

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <3f3be56a.193080334@news.pacific.net.sg>, a?n?g?e?
l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com says... On 14 Aug 2003 11:34:33 -0700, natifnatal34@netscape.net (Yves Thomas) wrote:For example, could one just take the directory where an application'sfiles are located and moving that entire directory to a new drive? Well, it used to be doable back in the Dos/Win3.1x days.... but then we had Microsoft's idea of progress and so ...

Indeed. Even users of the lowly OS/2 could simply drag an
application from one drive to another and it would survive
without stretch-marks. M$ has never embraced "objects" and
hasn't a clue. Perhaps they've decided that such activity goes
counter to their business model (I.e. makes it easy for the
consumer).

--
Keith

[Alexander Grigoriev]

Check the following:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;315270


"guy2003" <guy2003@NOSPAMnetscape.net> wrote in message
news:smkljv0sc780ifeq4eismelsr2ujmkkgrr@4ax.com... 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.

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <OEI$ruVZDHA.1128@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, p51mustang-
spoof-36@invaildhotmail.com says... Just buy a new bigger drive.

That doesn't exactly answer the question, now does it?

Besides the top-posing and issue, what else did your 180ish lines
of non-answer contribute to the discussion?

--
Keith