Screen goes black after XP logo

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
22,468
Rampage,

Of course XP performs well with more memory. It would perform better with a faster processor. This has been true of operating systems for years. Not sure it has anything to do with this particular problem though.

This has been covered in another thread of yours. By the way, one of the admins, AcaCandy, requests your clarifying some some posts you made about only being able to install FAT16 on small hard drives. http://forums.techguy.org/showthread.php?p=2348058#post2348058. Hopefully can take the time to clear this up.

JBgobears,

Is the slow down before or after login. Still not quite certain given the description.
 

WhitPhil

Gone but never forgotten
Trusted Advisor
Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
8,684
"With 512Mb you can keep the core in memory and there is less chance of fragmentation within the RAM itself."

Really???

Which architecture is this?

JBgobears:

I like Bob's suggestion about the IP address. The slowdown could be related to a networking issue.
 

WhitPhil

Gone but never forgotten
Trusted Advisor
Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
8,684
Thanks, that's how to keep the kernal in ram so that it isn't paged out. Which, "could" result in increased performance.

But, it says nothing about how ram becomes fragmented. Or, not as your post suggests.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
22,468
Rampage,

There is absolutely nothing in my link which you posted that says anything about "there is less chance of fragmentation within the RAM itself"

Please be more technically accurate on this technical forum.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
22,468
That's a pretty general statement. Do you have the technical article to share with the rest of us. At least provide some documentation to back up the claim that "With 512Mb you can keep the core in memory and there is less chance of fragmentation within the RAM itself." - Particularly the part about fragmentation. At least a few of us have never heard that one before. Or maybe explain in detail how keeping the core files in memory lessens memory fragmentation.
 

WhitPhil

Gone but never forgotten
Trusted Advisor
Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
8,684
Yes, I would like to see a link to that "technical" article as well.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
22,468
WhitPhil,

Given all the recent history in this and other posts, it would seem unlikely that there will be any real technical information provided.

Typically there has been either:

1. Some tangent remark which has nothing to do with the question at hand, which then goes on to raise even more questions...which don't get answered either.

2. A smart remark like "I'll leave that to you gentlemen as you are so willing to explain these things kindly to people."

3. Nothing at all.
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Members online

Top