system dangerously low on resources

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I've started getting this message when attempting to use Nero. What does it
mean? How can it be sorted out? There seems to be enough space on the
hard drive>
Tia
RoS
35 answers Last reply
More about system dangerously resources
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Funny you should metion that. For the first time ever I got the same error
    message (once) last night while using Dell's MusicMatch (updated to 9.0)
    when trying and listen to the MusicMatch Radio. I'm one of those people who
    also has the new MS update KB891711 update installed with no-problems, or so
    I thought (maybe).

    Steve

    "RoS" <kermitbaby@bigpond.com> wrote in message
    news:OUMvgzoOFHA.2144@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > I've started getting this message when attempting to use Nero. What does
    it
    > mean? How can it be sorted out? There seems to be enough space on the
    > hard drive>
    > Tia
    > RoS
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    http://www.aumha.org/a/resource.htm
    http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#resources
    The above sites may give you a better understanding of what is taking place.
    Certain apps, mulitmedia or graphics intensive for example, are much more
    demanding on resources.....especially, in Me. User and GDI (Graphics Device
    Interface) Resources are fixed and limited to 64Kb each on a Win9x OS.
    It is doubtful that the MS update KB891711 is the cause in this instance.
    Heirloom, old and needs to be resourced

    "(yet another) Steve" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    news:uLHVbkrOFHA.3560@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > Funny you should metion that. For the first time ever I got the same error
    > message (once) last night while using Dell's MusicMatch (updated to 9.0)
    > when trying and listen to the MusicMatch Radio. I'm one of those people
    who
    > also has the new MS update KB891711 update installed with no-problems, or
    so
    > I thought (maybe).
    >
    > Steve
    >
    > "RoS" <kermitbaby@bigpond.com> wrote in message
    > news:OUMvgzoOFHA.2144@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > > I've started getting this message when attempting to use Nero. What
    does
    > it
    > > mean? How can it be sorted out? There seems to be enough space on the
    > > hard drive>
    > > Tia
    > > RoS
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    In article <Oc0Sl7vOFHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, heirloom says...

    > "(yet another) Steve" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    > news:uLHVbkrOFHA.3560@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

    > > "RoS" <kermitbaby@bigpond.com> wrote in message
    > > news:OUMvgzoOFHA.2144@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

    > > > I've started getting this message when attempting to use Nero. What
    > > > does it mean? How can it be sorted out? There seems to be enough
    > > > space on the hard drive

    > > Funny you should metion that. For the first time ever I got the same
    > > error message (once) last night while using Dell's MusicMatch (updated
    > > to 9.0) when trying and listen to the MusicMatch Radio. I'm one of those
    > > people who also has the new MS update KB891711 update installed with
    > > no-problems, or so I thought (maybe).

    > http://www.aumha.org/a/resource.htm
    > http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#resources
    > The above sites may give you a better understanding of what is taking place.
    > Certain apps, mulitmedia or graphics intensive for example, are much more
    > demanding on resources.....especially, in Me. User and GDI (Graphics Device
    > Interface) Resources are fixed and limited to 64Kb each on a Win9x OS.
    > It is doubtful that the MS update KB891711 is the cause in this instance.

    Um...maybe, maybe not. I have seen the "system dangerously low on
    resources" error when trying to bail on a failed Mozilla browser launch when
    Kb891711 is installed. Blue screen, any key, another blue screen, any key
    (again), and somewhere in the sequence, the resource error. Odd, because
    when I could get a resource usage display, the system was not low on
    resources, nor is the failure to launch the browser while Kb891711 is
    running directly attributed to the browser. When I kill the startup of the
    Mercury Mail MTA, the browsers all launch without error, even with Kb891711
    running. I just can't run both Kb891711 ***AND*** Mercury Mail at the same
    time, ***AND*** use a browser while that software combo is running.

    Though the crash only occurs when I try to launch a browser, I can cure the
    problem by only one of two methods; don't start Mercury Mail, or don't start
    Kb891711.

    --
    Norman
    ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
    ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
    ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Boot up with the latest M$ Patch and check the levels on the Resource Meter (and
    post them); and uncheck the Patch (KB891711) then reboot and check the Resource
    Meter levels (and post them). This is to give a ballpark estimate of how much in
    Resources the M$ Patch is using. The difference between the two results will be
    indicative of why you are now getting Low Resource Errors. If the difference is
    25%, well, that might use up the Resources two other applications could have
    used instead of the M$ Patch.

    Let's see what the difference is, huh?

    P.S.: I don't dare download the latest patches.
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    > Let's see what the difference is, huh?

    Approx. 0%.
    --
    Mike Maltby MS-MVP
    mike.maltby@gmail.com


    Cymbal Man Freq. <Don't Bother@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote:

    > Boot up with the latest M$ Patch and check the levels on the Resource
    > Meter (and post them); and uncheck the Patch (KB891711) then reboot
    > and check the Resource Meter levels (and post them). This is to give
    > a ballpark estimate of how much in Resources the M$ Patch is using.
    > The difference between the two results will be indicative of why you
    > are now getting Low Resource Errors. If the difference is 25%, well,
    > that might use up the Resources two other applications could have
    > used instead of the M$ Patch.
    >
    > Let's see what the difference is, huh?
    >
    > P.S.: I don't dare download the latest patches.
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    In article <NRp5e.64511$Ms3.5920@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, says...

    > Boot up with the latest M$ Patch and check the levels on the Resource Meter (and
    > post them); and uncheck the Patch (KB891711) then reboot and check the Resource
    > Meter levels (and post them). This is to give a ballpark estimate of how much in
    > Resources the M$ Patch is using. The difference between the two results will be
    > indicative of why you are now getting Low Resource Errors. If the difference is
    > 25%, well, that might use up the Resources two other applications could have
    > used instead of the M$ Patch.

    > Let's see what the difference is, huh?

    > P.S.: I don't dare download the latest patches.

    Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I have two identical HP Pavilion 6745C
    computers; one can run the Kb891711 patch, on the other, launching browsers
    causes a blue screen error. So I let the patch run on the one system;
    primarily because it belongs to my mother, and she is a bit helpless about
    security matters. MSFT call the vulnerability addressed by the patch,
    "critical".

    As Mike M points out, there are no resources consumed by the patch. I tried
    loading it, and then unloading it. No change at all. Granted, the Windows
    Resource meter isn't the best such tool; but it didn't show a difference by
    your suggested test.

    As far as what the patch actually does, I have know idea. On my computer
    which breaks when the patch is running, it breaks when I try to launch any
    browser, even MSIE. But as soon as I unload the Mercury Mail MTA, there is
    no problem. If I didn't want to run Mercury Mail, my computer would not
    break with the Kb891711 patch running.

    I just tried stopping the Active Desktop. It is a bit of vanity, and I could
    easily reclaim 5% of my system resources by not running it. So I stopped it
    and tried running the Kb891711 patch again. This time, without AD, I did not
    just get a blue screen on launching MSIE6; the computer locked.
    Ctrl+Alt+Delete cause a system resources error; only the second time that I
    have seen one while running the patch. I don't understand the significance.
    There is something in the underlying interaction between OS modules which is
    causing this. I have not heard back from Noel Paton, whether he was ever
    able to break his system with Mercury Mail running. MSFT is focused on
    problems with Norton Software, but stopping Norton from running (System
    Works and Utilities, but not Anti Virus; NAV is not even present on this
    computer) doesn't cure what ails my computer.

    Whatever the patch is doing, it isn't, buy itself, a resource hog. My best
    guess it that it is some kind of memory conflict. Initially MSFT focused on
    video drivers because of the error messages, and memory location reported.
    But I have two identical computers, with the same video drivers, version and
    all; but only one is broken by the patch.

    Noel, if you are cuing on your name in these posts; these Pavilions share
    system RAM with the video. While poking around the BIOS menus, I could see
    where I could select from 0 Bytes, .5 MBytes, and 1Mbytes for shared video
    RAM. Both Pavilions share 1MBytes by default; unchanged. But I can't run Doc
    Mem on the full 192MBytes on the motherboard; presumably because the last
    1MByte is not actually owned by the system, but is owned by the video
    subsystem.

    --
    Norman
    ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
    ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
    ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Since the Patch is a running service, maybe it only uses resources when another
    program is in play, like a browser.
    Open a browser without the Patch, and check the resources; then open a browser
    with the Patch, and check the resources to see if there is a difference in
    resource useage. Maybe the resources go down faster with the Patch while
    web-surfing than they would without the Patch.

    (A car not in gear goes nowhere on a level surface.)


    "Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
    news:%23B0sUKCPFHA.2520@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    | > Let's see what the difference is, huh?
    |
    | Approx. 0%.


    Ouch.
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    I'm unclear as to which part of "Approx. 0%" you don't understand.
    Perhaps you could explain?
    --
    Mike Maltby MS-MVP
    mike.maltby@gmail.com


    Cymbal Man Freq. <Don't Bother@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote:

    > Since the Patch is a running service, maybe it only uses resources
    > when another program is in play, like a browser.
    > Open a browser without the Patch, and check the resources; then open
    > a browser with the Patch, and check the resources to see if there is
    > a difference in resource useage. Maybe the resources go down faster
    > with the Patch while web-surfing than they would without the Patch.
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Norman,

    > MSFT is focused on problems with Norton Software

    To be honest I don't think that that is the case at all here. I know
    little more than yourself what Microsoft are doing about finding the cause
    of the problems that some are experiencing with the 891711 patch on Win 9x
    systems but am pretty certain that it isn't the narrow focus that you are
    suggesting that it is.
    --
    Mike Maltby MS-MVP
    mike.maltby@gmail.com


    N. Miller <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

    > Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I have two identical HP Pavilion
    > 6745C computers; one can run the Kb891711 patch, on the other,
    > launching browsers causes a blue screen error. So I let the patch run
    > on the one system; primarily because it belongs to my mother, and she
    > is a bit helpless about security matters. MSFT call the vulnerability
    > addressed by the patch, "critical".
    >
    > As Mike M points out, there are no resources consumed by the patch. I
    > tried loading it, and then unloading it. No change at all. Granted,
    > the Windows Resource meter isn't the best such tool; but it didn't
    > show a difference by your suggested test.
    >
    > As far as what the patch actually does, I have know idea. On my
    > computer which breaks when the patch is running, it breaks when I try
    > to launch any browser, even MSIE. But as soon as I unload the Mercury
    > Mail MTA, there is no problem. If I didn't want to run Mercury Mail,
    > my computer would not break with the Kb891711 patch running.
    >
    > I just tried stopping the Active Desktop. It is a bit of vanity, and
    > I could easily reclaim 5% of my system resources by not running it.
    > So I stopped it and tried running the Kb891711 patch again. This
    > time, without AD, I did not just get a blue screen on launching
    > MSIE6; the computer locked. Ctrl+Alt+Delete cause a system resources
    > error; only the second time that I have seen one while running the
    > patch. I don't understand the significance. There is something in the
    > underlying interaction between OS modules which is causing this. I
    > have not heard back from Noel Paton, whether he was ever able to
    > break his system with Mercury Mail running. MSFT is focused on
    > problems with Norton Software, but stopping Norton from running
    > (System Works and Utilities, but not Anti Virus; NAV is not even
    > present on this computer) doesn't cure what ails my computer.
    >
    > Whatever the patch is doing, it isn't, buy itself, a resource hog. My
    > best guess it that it is some kind of memory conflict. Initially MSFT
    > focused on video drivers because of the error messages, and memory
    > location reported. But I have two identical computers, with the same
    > video drivers, version and all; but only one is broken by the patch.
    >
    > Noel, if you are cuing on your name in these posts; these Pavilions
    > share system RAM with the video. While poking around the BIOS menus,
    > I could see where I could select from 0 Bytes, .5 MBytes, and 1Mbytes
    > for shared video RAM. Both Pavilions share 1MBytes by default;
    > unchanged. But I can't run Doc Mem on the full 192MBytes on the
    > motherboard; presumably because the last 1MByte is not actually owned
    > by the system, but is owned by the video subsystem.
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    I'm suggesting that the Patch uses extreme resources when you open a browser.
    Since you BSOD while opening the browser only when the patch is enabled; it may
    take 3-10 seconds for the resource meter to respond with the next reading when
    things are changing around it, and by then you've gone BSOD.

    However, if you only have 191 MB of RAM, I would suggest the lack of available
    RAM to be an insufficiency worthy of being called a culprit.
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    In article <99F5e.106$BJ3.62@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, says...

    > I'm suggesting that the Patch uses extreme resources when you open a browser.
    > Since you BSOD while opening the browser only when the patch is enabled; it may
    > take 3-10 seconds for the resource meter to respond with the next reading when
    > things are changing around it, and by then you've gone BSOD.

    > However, if you only have 191 MB of RAM, I would suggest the lack of available
    > RAM to be an insufficiency worthy of being called a culprit.

    191MBytes is more than adequate for most purposes on a Windows ME computer
    that is not being used for memory intensive programs. This computer shipped
    with only 64 MBytes of RAM, of which only 63 MBytes was available to the
    system. Since the most memory intensive application that I ran suggested
    that 64 MBytes was minimum, I figured that I would be well off to add 128
    MBytes, instead of just another 64 MBytes. It has never posed a problem.

    Kb891711 does not consume any resources that I can detect. Even when I open
    a browser. Or did I fail to inform you that it isn't just opening the
    browser which causes the problem. I only get the blue screen under a narrow
    set of circumstances; Mercury Mail MTA is running, Kb891711 is running, and
    I open a browser. Kill either Mercury Mail, or Kb891711, and I can open the
    browser just fine.

    On a fresh boot I show 77% available system resources, regardless of whether
    Kb891711 is running, or not running. Mozilla Firefox takes out about 5%
    (accuracy is limited because I am using the Windows ME resource meter). The
    Mozilla 1.7.6 suite only takes 2% of available resources. Killing Mercury
    Mail adds back about 4% of system resources. Starting Kb891711 takes 0% of
    system resources.

    It looks more like a system conflict, possibly two applications attempt to
    write to the same memory location, than anything else.

    --
    Norman
    ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
    ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
    ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    In article <uuFVC1IPFHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, Mike M says...

    > Norman,

    > > MSFT is focused on problems with Norton Software

    > To be honest I don't think that that is the case at all here. I know
    > little more than yourself what Microsoft are doing about finding the cause
    > of the problems that some are experiencing with the 891711 patch on Win 9x
    > systems but am pretty certain that it isn't the narrow focus that you are
    > suggesting that it is.

    Sorry; I really should have said, "It seems like MSFT is focused...". I was
    considering the thrust of some questions which were asked about my setup,
    and the role that NAV played in it. NAV is not loaded at all, and stopping
    the other Norton apps does not stop the breakage, neither does running them
    seem to cause it. In my case, whether things break, or don't break, seems to
    be dependent upon whether I start the Mercury Mail MTA, or stop it.

    --
    Norman
    ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
    ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
    ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Once again may I politely inform you that the patch uses 0% additional
    resources on a system where installing it causes no problems.
    --
    Mike Maltby MS-MVP
    mike.maltby@gmail.com


    Cymbal Man Freq. <Don't Bother@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote:

    > I'm suggesting that the Patch uses extreme resources when you open a
    > browser. Since you BSOD while opening the browser only when the patch
    > is enabled; it may take 3-10 seconds for the resource meter to
    > respond with the next reading when things are changing around it, and
    > by then you've gone BSOD.
    >
    > However, if you only have 191 MB of RAM, I would suggest the lack of
    > available RAM to be an insufficiency worthy of being called a culprit.
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    "Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
    news:ee5N8qJPFHA.2520@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    | Once again may I politely inform you that the patch uses 0% additional
    | resources on a system where installing it causes no problems.
    | --
    | Mike Maltby MS-MVP
    | mike.maltby@gmail.com

    Then why the Resource Errors? It must be that unknown black hole of resource
    gougers that can't be measured....my scanner did that for awhile a long time
    ago.
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    In article <OxF5e.118$BJ3.96@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, says...

    > Then why the Resource Errors? It must be that unknown black hole of resource
    > gougers that can't be measured....my scanner did that for awhile a long time
    > ago.

    In case you missed my posts on the subject, here they are:

    HP Pavilion 6745C "Megumi", Kb891711 installed, blue screen.
    HP Pavilion 6745C "Naomi", Kb891711 installed, no blue screen.

    I will test the resources tomorrow when my mother boot "Naomi" again. In the
    meantime, when I can keep the resource meter running on "Megumi", it always
    shows that resources used by Kb891711 are 0%.

    --
    Norman
    ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
    ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
    ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
  16. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    > Then why the Resource Errors?

    You need to ask? Hopefully by now you have realised that the 891711 patch
    is causing some users problems and these are due to some as yet to be
    determined adverse interaction with other system components. Those having
    no problems with the patch are seeing 0% additional resource utilisation
    as a result of having installed the patch.
    --
    Mike Maltby MS-MVP
    mike.maltby@gmail.com


    Cymbal Man Freq. <Don't Bother@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote:

    > Then why the Resource Errors? It must be that unknown black hole of
    > resource gougers that can't be measured....my scanner did that for
    > awhile a long time ago.
  17. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Norman
    Just to clarify things a little on the Norton front.....
    It was my suspicion tha perhaps Norton had something to do with the
    problems, since a large number of the early reports came from Norton users.
    Since then, I've had a number of Everest reports from people - and it seems
    like that idea is a busted flush.
    There is no discernable pattern WRT the AV or Firewall in use that I can
    see - so I'm having to search elsewhere for similarities. It's a bit like
    looking for needles in haystacks though!


    --
    Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

    Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
    http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

    Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

    "N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1cc125ff992d269998a7a6@msnews.microsoft.com...
    > In article <uuFVC1IPFHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, Mike M says...
    >
    >> Norman,
    >
    >> > MSFT is focused on problems with Norton Software
    >
    >> To be honest I don't think that that is the case at all here. I know
    >> little more than yourself what Microsoft are doing about finding the
    >> cause
    >> of the problems that some are experiencing with the 891711 patch on Win
    >> 9x
    >> systems but am pretty certain that it isn't the narrow focus that you are
    >> suggesting that it is.
    >
    > Sorry; I really should have said, "It seems like MSFT is focused...". I
    > was
    > considering the thrust of some questions which were asked about my setup,
    > and the role that NAV played in it. NAV is not loaded at all, and stopping
    > the other Norton apps does not stop the breakage, neither does running
    > them
    > seem to cause it. In my case, whether things break, or don't break, seems
    > to
    > be dependent upon whether I start the Mercury Mail MTA, or stop it.
    >
    > --
    > Norman
    > ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
    > ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
    > ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
  18. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    I've got 384 MB of RAM on my machine, and with Outlook Express open, and having
    been on the computer for an hour doing various things, I only have 108 MB of
    free RAM left. So that is 276 MB of RAM in use, until I use MemDefrag to reclaim
    some of it. I'll run that now. That only brought me up to 150 MB of free RAM, so
    234 MB of RAM is still in use. I bet my Swap File is sitting around looking big
    and doing nothing. Well, surprise, surprise...my swap file is using 10 MB out of
    the 996,147,200 bytes available as the fixed swap file size.

    MemDefrag usually kicks in when I run out of RAM, which could happen during any
    scan of my computer when it finds an overstuffed folder, or when I over-zoom a
    photo in my Irfanview photo viewer, or when burning a cd on occasion. It can
    help me get from a BSOD system crashing 0 MB of free RAM back up to well over
    100 MB of free RAM in just seconds instead of having to reboot.

    When I view pictures, though, I have to reboot after watching around
    seventy-five to one hundred seventy-five 1024 x 768 photos. The photoviewer
    comes up black without photo after so many pictures are shown. The only way to
    get the photoviewer back in working order is to reboot. I hope getting a WinXP
    computer will eliminate this kind of glitch.

    BTW, I've lost 2 MB of RAM just while typing this up. Must be the system monitor
    window that is causing that.
  19. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    There is NO POINT in running external memory optimisers in Win ME - they are
    ALWAYS, and WITHOUT EXCEPTION, worse than Win ME's own optimiser.
    If you have unused RAM, what's the point in having it installed? - you may
    as well hang it on the wall for a trophy!!

    Get rid of your sake-oil software, and you may well find that ME works the
    way it is supposed to!!


    --
    Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

    Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
    http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

    http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

    Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

    "Cymbal Man Freq." <Don't Bother@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in
    message news:0eU5e.277$b92.102@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
    > I've got 384 MB of RAM on my machine, and with Outlook Express open, and
    > having
    > been on the computer for an hour doing various things, I only have 108 MB
    > of
    > free RAM left. So that is 276 MB of RAM in use, until I use MemDefrag to
    > reclaim
    > some of it. I'll run that now. That only brought me up to 150 MB of free
    > RAM, so
    > 234 MB of RAM is still in use. I bet my Swap File is sitting around
    > looking big
    > and doing nothing. Well, surprise, surprise...my swap file is using 10 MB
    > out of
    > the 996,147,200 bytes available as the fixed swap file size.
    >
    > MemDefrag usually kicks in when I run out of RAM, which could happen
    > during any
    > scan of my computer when it finds an overstuffed folder, or when I
    > over-zoom a
    > photo in my Irfanview photo viewer, or when burning a cd on occasion. It
    > can
    > help me get from a BSOD system crashing 0 MB of free RAM back up to well
    > over
    > 100 MB of free RAM in just seconds instead of having to reboot.
    >
    > When I view pictures, though, I have to reboot after watching around
    > seventy-five to one hundred seventy-five 1024 x 768 photos. The
    > photoviewer
    > comes up black without photo after so many pictures are shown. The only
    > way to
    > get the photoviewer back in working order is to reboot. I hope getting a
    > WinXP
    > computer will eliminate this kind of glitch.
    >
    > BTW, I've lost 2 MB of RAM just while typing this up. Must be the system
    > monitor
    > window that is causing that.
    >
    >
    >
  20. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Agreed. Running MemDefrag and the like is mostly pointless and in this
    case is being used by someone who seems to be unduly concerned with
    resource use. It appears the OP would possibly benefit by reading and
    learning a little about memory, swap file usage and memory management.
    --
    Mike Maltby MS-MVP
    mike.maltby@gmail.com


    Noel Paton <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote:

    > There is NO POINT in running external memory optimisers in Win ME -
    > they are ALWAYS, and WITHOUT EXCEPTION, worse than Win ME's own
    > optimiser. If you have unused RAM, what's the point in having it
    > installed? -
    > you may as well hang it on the wall for a trophy!!
    >
    > Get rid of your sake-oil software, and you may well find that ME
    > works the way it is supposed to!!
  21. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    "Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
    news:Oj5rJxSPFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    | Agreed. Running MemDefrag and the like is mostly pointless and in this
    | case is being used by someone who seems to be unduly concerned with
    | resource use.

    Unduly?

    I quit.
  22. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Yes, unduly. You seem to spend your time unnecessarily worrying about
    things that cause no problem rather than concentrating on real problems.

    > I quit.

    Yes, based on your posts in to this newsgroup that could well be the best
    option for you to take.
    --
    Mike Maltby MS-MVP
    mike.maltby@gmail.com


    Cymbal Man Freq. <Don't Bother@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote:

    > Unduly?
    >
    > I quit.
  23. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Since the MVP's seem to be oblivious of resource problems, and I've had plenty
    of recent experience with resource problems, the only non-problem you should be
    designating is your own lack of being able to replicate the problems in your own
    labs.

    My posts have been valid for the subject at hand. The MVP's response has been
    dismissive of posts that don't relate to their current world view and
    experience.

    This is a rebuttal, not an attack.

    Have a good day, before I become dangerously low on system resources yet again.
  24. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    In article <6XV5e.811$BJ3.645@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, says...

    > Since the MVP's seem to be oblivious of resource problems, and I've had plenty
    > of recent experience with resource problems, the only non-problem you should be
    > designating is your own lack of being able to replicate the problems in your own
    > labs.

    I usually only run into low resource issues when I have a gazillion windows
    open. Oddly, the most resource intensive programs I have are IM programs. I
    also encountered one news client which seemed to cause me grief with system
    resources: XNews. I switched to Super Gravity because of that, even though
    XNews is really better than Super Gravity is many respects.

    The system resource errors that I saw, two total, when playing with Kb891711
    do not seem to be an indication that I am running out of resources. I only
    mentioned them because I saw them, and that might point somebody at MSFT
    along a line of enquiry. If I kill Mercury Mail, but leave Kb891711 running,
    I don't see an memory or resource issues. All that I can think of is some
    kind of memory conflict in the interaction of the two applications: Mercury
    Mail and Kb891711.

    > My posts have been valid for the subject at hand. The MVP's response has been
    > dismissive of posts that don't relate to their current world view and
    > experience.

    They have pointedly been wrong. I am neither an MVP, or an MSFT fan; I have
    yet to switch to MS Windows XP, nor do I feel compelled to. But I can see
    that, between your claims, and the MVP claims, WRT Kb891711, you are wrong.

    > This is a rebuttal, not an attack.

    It changes nothing.

    > Have a good day, before I become dangerously low on system resources yet again.

    Drink some O.J.; better for you than coffee! ;)

    --
    Norman
    ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
    ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
    ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
  25. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Rather than being oblivious of resource problems I know a fair bit and
    certainly more than enough not to cripple my machines by installing
    products such as MemDefrag. Your problem is that you appear not to be
    able to distinguish between problems created on your system by installing
    the KB891711 hotfix (which are not resource problems at all) and those
    caused by installing snake oil and crippleware products.

    I have yet to see post details of any resource problems with your system
    but instead continually refer to problems relating to the 891711 patch.
    If the patch causes you such problems either remove it or disable it. If
    you have resource problems then post details or better read up and learn
    about resource management in Win 9x systems. For example resources have
    nothing to do with RAM or swap file usage but instead refer to two 64KB
    stacks used by various 16 bit applications and libraries to store pointers
    and the like.
    --
    Mike Maltby MS-MVP
    mike.maltby@gmail.com


    Cymbal Man Freq. <Don't Bother@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote:

    > Since the MVP's seem to be oblivious of resource problems, and I've
    > had plenty of recent experience with resource problems, the only
    > non-problem you should be designating is your own lack of being able
    > to replicate the problems in your own labs.
    >
    > My posts have been valid for the subject at hand. The MVP's response
    > has been dismissive of posts that don't relate to their current world
    > view and experience.
    >
    > This is a rebuttal, not an attack.
    >
    > Have a good day, before I become dangerously low on system resources
    > yet again.
  26. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    > .... Well, surprise, surprise...my swap file is using 10 MB out of
    > the 996,147,200 bytes available as the fixed swap file size.

    See :- "Windows 98 & WinMe Memory Management" - WHY IS THE SWAP FILE SO
    LARGE? - ... "the best advice regarding the Win98 or WinME swap file is:
    Let Windows handle it"
    http://www.aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm

    and System Resources FAQ :-
    http://www.aumha.org/win4/a/resource.htm

    Certainly worth consideration. Good luck.

    Mart


    "Cymbal Man Freq." <Don't Bother@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in
    message news:6XV5e.811$BJ3.645@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
    > Since the MVP's seem to be oblivious of resource problems, and I've had
    > plenty
    > of recent experience with resource problems, the only non-problem you
    > should be
    > designating is your own lack of being able to replicate the problems in
    > your own
    > labs.
    >
    > My posts have been valid for the subject at hand. The MVP's response has
    > been
    > dismissive of posts that don't relate to their current world view and
    > experience.
    >
    > This is a rebuttal, not an attack.
    >
    > Have a good day, before I become dangerously low on system resources yet
    > again.
    >
    >
    >
  27. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    "N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1cc21facb1b1bdbd98a7a9@msnews.microsoft.com...
    | In article <6XV5e.811$BJ3.645@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, says...
    | | > Have a good day, before I become dangerously low on system resources yet
    again.
    |
    | Drink some O.J.; better for you than coffee! ;)
    |
    | --
    | Norman


    Would it help to tell you that I don't drink coffee, but I just bought a half
    gallon of OJ?
    Yup, I bought it 76 minutes before your post here. I'm all set.

    How do psychics protect their intellectual property? Inquiring minds want to
    know.
  28. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    "Cymbal Man Freq." <Don't Bother@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote:

    >Since the MVP's seem to be oblivious of resource problems, and I've had plenty
    >of recent experience with resource problems, the only non-problem you should be
    >designating is your own lack of being able to replicate the problems in your own
    >labs.
    >
    >My posts have been valid for the subject at hand. The MVP's response has been
    >dismissive of posts that don't relate to their current world view and
    >experience.
    >
    >This is a rebuttal, not an attack.
    >
    >Have a good day, before I become dangerously low on system resources yet again.
    >
    >

    I have just reviewed every message in this thread twice, and not once
    in any of your previous posts have you provided any quantitative data
    regarding System Resources.

    If you want specific advice then please provide specific data.


    Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
    --
    Microsoft MVP
    On-Line Help Computer Service
    http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

    In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
    http://aumha.org/alex.htm
  29. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:uo5h515lheqjio03qqb0860uffgtbbmdt0@4ax.com...
    ||
    | I have just reviewed every message in this thread twice, and not once
    | in any of your previous posts have you provided any quantitative data
    | regarding System Resources.
    |
    | If you want specific advice then please provide specific data.
    |

    PS, I Have not downloaded the Patch.

    However, on the 4th post of this thread, not mine, but from N. Miller on
    Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:17 PM

    "I have seen the "system dangerously low on
    resources" error when trying to bail on a failed Mozilla browser launch when
    Kb891711 is installed. Blue screen, any key, another blue screen, any key
    (again), and somewhere in the sequence, the resource error. "


    This is one point where I could inquire about System Resources. It is an error
    message that appears when 90% or more of User/System Resources are in use and if
    it goes another 11% past 90%, there will be BSOD's. So if the user is getting
    BSOD's before/during/after a resource error message like that, of course I'm
    going to wonder about resources. The MVP has tested the patch at idle-speed and
    found that it uses no resources. So why did this poster, N. Miller, get the
    error message & the BSOD when trying to open his browser?

    I, myself, have been working on my parents Dell with Win Me installed and have
    hit this error message quite a bit since we installed the ZA firewall and the
    AVG 7 anti-virus and the new NSW 2005 without anti-virus & without Go Back. My
    mother opened up Word 2000 one day and got the BSOD, and found the resource
    error message somewhere in the mix. We unchecked some things in msconfig to
    reduce the load on the resources. The firewall seems to be using 25%! So
    thereafter, we are being very observant about resources when things go wrong. If
    we try to do a print job, we are crossing our fingers that the printjob will get
    done when the amount of resources needed to do the printjob is estimated to be
    about equal to the amount of resources available before we hit the Print button.
    The print driver will fail to load if we hit the 0% mark on the resource meter,
    but sometimes it will bounce back and do the job anyway. Other times, the print
    driver will fail to load and the machine mucks up and its time to reboot the
    hardway.

    Say a printjob takes 13% resources, there are 11% left on the resource meter,
    there is a 2% shortage. We will get the resource error message, and we may/will
    suffer a machine malfunction...but we don't know for a fact what resource amount
    the printjob will be unless we do repeats...and the machine is always in danger
    of crashing while doing new & different printjobs!

    When we boot up the machine, there is 47% resources available a minute or two
    after it's done doing its boot up routine. The resource meter has a bit of a
    delayed action, it takes a little while for it to change its reading.

    So if we have Word open, IE open, and try to print off the web: we run out of
    resources. If we copy what's on the web into Word and print from Word, the job
    will get done with just a handful of percent left to spare, and we'll get the
    error message about resources being used over the 90% level.

    Each open window in IE seems to use 10% resources, so if we have 5 windows open
    of the web kind, we are likely to BSOD the machine.

    I even installed a ZA (eTrust firewall) on a Win 98 SE machine, and it used up
    25% more resources than the previous firewall, and I suddenly got resource
    errors on a regular basis that I rarely ever received before. I uninstalled that
    ZA (eTRust) firewall within a day becuase of the performance hit I was taking.

    I've got resource problems up the wazoo!

    So which MVP has to watch THEIR resource meter like a hawk on a daily basis so
    they don't do the wrong task and BSOD the machine with a resource error message?
    I was trying to bring attention to the plight of resource deficient computers
    and their users. If N. Miller doesn't know what the error message was about, and
    what I've written doesn't clue him in, there is no hope for understanding. The
    idea of a memory conflict is not out of the realm of consideration, and that
    could be causing the BSOD's and resource messages he notices. But put the
    messages in slow motion in another users' hands, and you'll see that it might
    not take much at all to "TILT" these machines in the resource department.
  30. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    You just said the magic words - Norton!!!
    that will explain a whole mess of problems

    --
    Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

    Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
    http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

    http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

    Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

    "Cymbal Man Freq." <Don't Bother@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in
    message news:kj36e.1352$BJ3.984@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
    >
    > "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:uo5h515lheqjio03qqb0860uffgtbbmdt0@4ax.com...
    > PS, I Have not downloaded the Patch.
    >
    > However, on the 4th post of this thread, not mine, but from N. Miller on
    > Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:17 PM
    >
    > "I have seen the "system dangerously low on
    > resources" error when trying to bail on a failed Mozilla browser launch
    > when
    > Kb891711 is installed. Blue screen, any key, another blue screen, any key
    > (again), and somewhere in the sequence, the resource error. "
    >
    >
    >
    > This is one point where I could inquire about System Resources. It is an
    > error
    > message that appears when 90% or more of User/System Resources are in use
    > and if
    > it goes another 11% past 90%, there will be BSOD's. So if the user is
    > getting
    > BSOD's before/during/after a resource error message like that, of course
    > I'm
    > going to wonder about resources. The MVP has tested the patch at
    > idle-speed and
    > found that it uses no resources. So why did this poster, N. Miller, get
    > the
    > error message & the BSOD when trying to open his browser?
    >
    > I, myself, have been working on my parents Dell with Win Me installed and
    > have
    > hit this error message quite a bit since we installed the ZA firewall and
    > the
    > AVG 7 anti-virus and the new NSW 2005 without anti-virus & without Go
    > Back. My
    > mother opened up Word 2000 one day and got the BSOD, and found the
    > resource
    > error message somewhere in the mix. We unchecked some things in msconfig
    > to
    > reduce the load on the resources. The firewall seems to be using 25%! So
    > thereafter, we are being very observant about resources when things go
    > wrong. If
    > we try to do a print job, we are crossing our fingers that the printjob
    > will get
    > done when the amount of resources needed to do the printjob is estimated
    > to be
    > about equal to the amount of resources available before we hit the Print
    > button.
    > The print driver will fail to load if we hit the 0% mark on the resource
    > meter,
    > but sometimes it will bounce back and do the job anyway. Other times, the
    > print
    > driver will fail to load and the machine mucks up and its time to reboot
    > the
    > hardway.
    >
    > Say a printjob takes 13% resources, there are 11% left on the resource
    > meter,
    > there is a 2% shortage. We will get the resource error message, and we
    > may/will
    > suffer a machine malfunction...but we don't know for a fact what resource
    > amount
    > the printjob will be unless we do repeats...and the machine is always in
    > danger
    > of crashing while doing new & different printjobs!
    >
    > When we boot up the machine, there is 47% resources available a minute or
    > two
    > after it's done doing its boot up routine. The resource meter has a bit of
    > a
    > delayed action, it takes a little while for it to change its reading.
    >
    > So if we have Word open, IE open, and try to print off the web: we run out
    > of
    > resources. If we copy what's on the web into Word and print from Word, the
    > job
    > will get done with just a handful of percent left to spare, and we'll get
    > the
    > error message about resources being used over the 90% level.
    >
    > Each open window in IE seems to use 10% resources, so if we have 5 windows
    > open
    > of the web kind, we are likely to BSOD the machine.
    >
    > I even installed a ZA (eTrust firewall) on a Win 98 SE machine, and it
    > used up
    > 25% more resources than the previous firewall, and I suddenly got resource
    > errors on a regular basis that I rarely ever received before. I
    > uninstalled that
    > ZA (eTRust) firewall within a day becuase of the performance hit I was
    > taking.
    >
    > I've got resource problems up the wazoo!
    >
    > So which MVP has to watch THEIR resource meter like a hawk on a daily
    > basis so
    > they don't do the wrong task and BSOD the machine with a resource error
    > message?
    > I was trying to bring attention to the plight of resource deficient
    > computers
    > and their users. If N. Miller doesn't know what the error message was
    > about, and
    > what I've written doesn't clue him in, there is no hope for understanding.
    > The
    > idea of a memory conflict is not out of the realm of consideration, and
    > that
    > could be causing the BSOD's and resource messages he notices. But put the
    > messages in slow motion in another users' hands, and you'll see that it
    > might
    > not take much at all to "TILT" these machines in the resource department.
    >
    >
    >
  31. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    > P.S.: I don't dare download the latest patches.
    and
    > PS, I Have not downloaded the Patch.

    So why do you keep referring to problems involving kb891711 when you have
    no experience of the problems that this patch causes some users.

    > The MVP has tested the patch at idle-speed and found that
    > it uses no resources.

    You know NOTHING about what tests I performed in establishing the patch
    consumes 0% additional resources and to say otherwise is a an outright
    lie.

    It has taken you two days and repeated prompting to post details of any
    resource problems you are experiencing. Given your track record and lies
    I for one now have no interest in attempting to help. You can however do
    your PC a service and dump the junk from Symantec you currently have
    installed together with any snake oil products such as MemDefrag that you
    have installed all of which consume resources for little or no benefit.
    --
    Mike Maltby MS-MVP
    mike.maltby@gmail.com


    Cymbal Man Freq. <Don't Bother@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote:

    > PS, I Have not downloaded the Patch.
    >
    > However, on the 4th post of this thread, not mine, but from N. Miller
    > on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:17 PM
    >
    > "I have seen the "system dangerously low on
    > resources" error when trying to bail on a failed Mozilla browser
    > launch when Kb891711 is installed. Blue screen, any key, another blue
    > screen, any key (again), and somewhere in the sequence, the resource
    > error. "
    >
    >
    >
    > This is one point where I could inquire about System Resources. It is
    > an error message that appears when 90% or more of User/System
    > Resources are in use and if it goes another 11% past 90%, there will
    > be BSOD's. So if the user is getting BSOD's before/during/after a
    > resource error message like that, of course I'm going to wonder about
    > resources. The MVP has tested the patch at idle-speed and found that
    > it uses no resources. So why did this poster, N. Miller, get the
    > error message & the BSOD when trying to open his browser?
    >
    > I, myself, have been working on my parents Dell with Win Me installed
    > and have hit this error message quite a bit since we installed the ZA
    > firewall and the AVG 7 anti-virus and the new NSW 2005 without
    > anti-virus & without Go Back. My mother opened up Word 2000 one day
    > and got the BSOD, and found the resource error message somewhere in
    > the mix. We unchecked some things in msconfig to reduce the load on
    > the resources. The firewall seems to be using 25%! So thereafter, we
    > are being very observant about resources when things go wrong. If we
    > try to do a print job, we are crossing our fingers that the printjob
    > will get done when the amount of resources needed to do the printjob
    > is estimated to be about equal to the amount of resources available
    > before we hit the Print button. The print driver will fail to load if
    > we hit the 0% mark on the resource meter, but sometimes it will
    > bounce back and do the job anyway. Other times, the print driver will
    > fail to load and the machine mucks up and its time to reboot the
    > hardway.
    >
    > Say a printjob takes 13% resources, there are 11% left on the
    > resource meter, there is a 2% shortage. We will get the resource
    > error message, and we may/will suffer a machine malfunction...but we
    > don't know for a fact what resource amount the printjob will be
    > unless we do repeats...and the machine is always in danger of
    > crashing while doing new & different printjobs!
    >
    > When we boot up the machine, there is 47% resources available a
    > minute or two after it's done doing its boot up routine. The resource
    > meter has a bit of a delayed action, it takes a little while for it
    > to change its reading.
    >
    > So if we have Word open, IE open, and try to print off the web: we
    > run out of resources. If we copy what's on the web into Word and
    > print from Word, the job will get done with just a handful of percent
    > left to spare, and we'll get the error message about resources being
    > used over the 90% level.
    >
    > Each open window in IE seems to use 10% resources, so if we have 5
    > windows open of the web kind, we are likely to BSOD the machine.
    >
    > I even installed a ZA (eTrust firewall) on a Win 98 SE machine, and
    > it used up 25% more resources than the previous firewall, and I
    > suddenly got resource errors on a regular basis that I rarely ever
    > received before. I uninstalled that ZA (eTRust) firewall within a day
    > becuase of the performance hit I was taking.
    >
    > I've got resource problems up the wazoo!
    >
    > So which MVP has to watch THEIR resource meter like a hawk on a daily
    > basis so they don't do the wrong task and BSOD the machine with a
    > resource error message? I was trying to bring attention to the plight
    > of resource deficient computers and their users. If N. Miller doesn't
    > know what the error message was about, and what I've written doesn't
    > clue him in, there is no hope for understanding. The idea of a memory
    > conflict is not out of the realm of consideration, and that could be
    > causing the BSOD's and resource messages he notices. But put the
    > messages in slow motion in another users' hands, and you'll see that
    > it might not take much at all to "TILT" these machines in the
    > resource department.
  32. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
    news:eV0iweaPFHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    | You just said the magic words - Norton!!!
    | that will explain a whole mess of problems
    |
    | --
    | Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)


    Actually, I believe the problem is Zone Alarm!!!

    My Norton doesn't have the NAV installed anymore, because THAT would crash the
    machine flat out of resources.
    Excepting the Go Back & NAV portions, NSW 2005 doesn't seem to be the culprit.
  33. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    "Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
    news:ud2ZSVcPFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    | You know NOTHING about what tests I performed in establishing the patch
    | consumes 0% additional resources and to say otherwise is a an outright
    | lie.


    OK, Sgt. Schultz
  34. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    In article <kj36e.1352$BJ3.984@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, says...

    > This is one point where I could inquire about System Resources. It is an error
    > message that appears when 90% or more of User/System Resources are in use and if
    > it goes another 11% past 90%, there will be BSOD's.

    I have only had a blue screen error with dangerously low system resources in
    the midst of this Kb891711 issue. The circumstances seem to point to a
    memory conflict. I only brought it up because somebody claimed that nobody
    had reported seeing it.

    OTOH, I have not seen blue screen when system resources went so low that the
    system stopped. I have recovered this WinME from a 9% system resources used
    state. I recovered enough resources to make a clean shutdown.

    All I can say is, I have seen the system resources error, twice only, with
    Kb891711; but the factor which makes the blue screen error show is running
    an MTA and Kb891711 at the same time. Stop the MTA, and this computer runs
    fine with Kb891711 installed; no blue screen, no low system resources.

    --
    Norman
    ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
    ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
    ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
  35. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    In article <eV0iweaPFHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, Noel Paton says...

    > You just said the magic words - Norton!!!
    > that will explain a whole mess of problems

    I have heard enough people who have had problems with Norton that I don't
    even doubt them. While the only Norton application which ever screwed up my
    system was System Doctor, and it was not disastrous, I can't discount other
    problems. The very brief amount of time that I let NAV email scanning run, I
    saw some weird files written in my Pegasus Mail message store. I never had
    the corruption issues, or breakage, that MSOE users report; but the content
    of the files suggested to me that Pegasus Mail just ignored whatever NAV was
    trying to do and trucked on without breaking. I stopped letting NAV scan
    email when I configured a Mercury Mail AV Policy with F-Prot for DOS.

    I do not recommend Norton products at this time; primarily over their
    Product Activation feature. It is similar to the MSFT Product Activation
    feature which is my only excuse to not upgrade to Windows XP.

    Also, in my experience, McAfee products are worse than Norton products. And
    I agree with most of the experts in this group who recommend turning off
    email anti virus scanning. It screws up the mail clients. If you aren't
    running a mail server, don't run email scanning. If you are running a mail
    server, investigate the AV solution which works best with that server; it
    will not be the retail version of either McAfee or Norton.

    --
    Norman
    ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
    ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
    ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
Ask a new question

Read More

Microsoft Nero Hard Drives Windows