Computer Freezes up at Log On screen in Windows XP

When I tried to log in - put in my password -  my computer freezes up - then 
I restart the computer and it lets me log in just fine.  The computer runs 
fine for the most part but now and then still locks up.  Especially when 
idle.  I changed the ram chip and it is much better but still freezes up at 
Log On.  Do I need to repair my profile.  Seems much better since I changed 
out the ram chip - I am using Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3
0
Utf
3/31/2010 12:15:01 PM
windowsxp.general 3897 articles. 1 followers. Follow

22 Replies
1437 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 18

klafert wrote:
> When I tried to log in - put in my password -  my computer freezes up - then 
> I restart the computer and it lets me log in just fine.  The computer runs 
> fine for the most part but now and then still locks up.  Especially when 
> idle.  I changed the ram chip and it is much better but still freezes up at 
> Log On.  Do I need to repair my profile.  Seems much better since I changed 
> out the ram chip - I am using Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3

How many ram sticks do you have, only one?

-- 
C
0
C
3/31/2010 12:18:52 PM
Yes a 1 MB chip I still have the old one which is a 1 MB

"C" wrote:

> klafert wrote:
> > When I tried to log in - put in my password -  my computer freezes up - then 
> > I restart the computer and it lets me log in just fine.  The computer runs 
> > fine for the most part but now and then still locks up.  Especially when 
> > idle.  I changed the ram chip and it is much better but still freezes up at 
> > Log On.  Do I need to repair my profile.  Seems much better since I changed 
> > out the ram chip - I am using Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3
> 
> How many ram sticks do you have, only one?
> 
> -- 
> C
> .
> 
0
Utf
3/31/2010 2:09:01 PM
You think I need both ?

"C" wrote:

> klafert wrote:
> > When I tried to log in - put in my password -  my computer freezes up - then 
> > I restart the computer and it lets me log in just fine.  The computer runs 
> > fine for the most part but now and then still locks up.  Especially when 
> > idle.  I changed the ram chip and it is much better but still freezes up at 
> > Log On.  Do I need to repair my profile.  Seems much better since I changed 
> > out the ram chip - I am using Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3
> 
> How many ram sticks do you have, only one?
> 
> -- 
> C
> .
> 
0
Utf
3/31/2010 2:10:04 PM
klafert wrote:
> You think I need both ?
> 
> "C" wrote:
> 
>> klafert wrote:
>>> When I tried to log in - put in my password -  my computer freezes up - then 
>>> I restart the computer and it lets me log in just fine.  The computer runs 
>>> fine for the most part but now and then still locks up.  Especially when 
>>> idle.  I changed the ram chip and it is much better but still freezes up at 
>>> Log On.  Do I need to repair my profile.  Seems much better since I changed 
>>> out the ram chip - I am using Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3
>> How many ram sticks do you have, only one?
>>
>> -- 
>> C
>> .
>>

No, although it would be better if the old one isn't bad. Put it in and 
see. You might want to put the RAM sticks in and then pull them out and 
in a bit to get rid of any corrosion.

-- 
C
0
C
3/31/2010 2:15:37 PM
"klafert" <klafert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9951DDF1-5107-4CD7-981E-5665EAC697E1@microsoft.com...

> Yes a 1 MB chip I still have the old one which is a 1 MB

Billy-Boy Gates stated some years ago that nobody needs more than 640K of
memory.


0
Greg
3/31/2010 3:11:58 PM
Greg Russell wrote:
> "klafert" <klafert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9951DDF1-5107-4CD7-981E-5665EAC697E1@microsoft.com...
> 
>> Yes a 1 MB chip I still have the old one which is a 1 MB
> 
> Billy-Boy Gates stated some years ago that nobody needs more than 640K of
> memory.
> 
> 

And when he said it, it was true. I bet he isn't saying it now. BTW, 
Billy Boy isn't the man in charge any more. It's Steve Ballmer.

-- 
Alias
0
Alias
3/31/2010 3:54:43 PM
"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hovr84$9cf$2@news.eternal-september.org...

>> Billy-Boy Gates stated some years ago that nobody needs more than 640K of
>> memory.
>
> And when he said it, it was true.

No, it most certainly wasn't, and people like you will believe _anything_
that Billy tells them.

I was running mathematical models at the time that simply couldn't be run
with that little of memory, so they were compiled and run on 32-bit systems
such as SunOS. The very numerous "himem" 3rd-party programs to extend the
memory beyond the Billy-mandated 640K barrier were a drain on cpu cycles, as
well as a significant source of additional "bugs" beyond the inherent M$
ones.


0
Greg
3/31/2010 4:21:56 PM
Greg Russell wrote:
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hovr84$9cf$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> 
>>> Billy-Boy Gates stated some years ago that nobody needs more than 640K of
>>> memory.
>> And when he said it, it was true.
> 
> No, it most certainly wasn't, and people like you will believe _anything_
> that Billy tells them.
> 
> I was running mathematical models at the time that simply couldn't be run
> with that little of memory, so they were compiled and run on 32-bit systems
> such as SunOS. The very numerous "himem" 3rd-party programs to extend the
> memory beyond the Billy-mandated 640K barrier were a drain on cpu cycles, as
> well as a significant source of additional "bugs" beyond the inherent M$
> ones.
> 
> 

OK, you win. It was true for most people and I bet he isn't saying that now.

-- 
Alias
0
Alias
3/31/2010 4:25:46 PM
I hope you mean you
have 1 gigabyte stick
of ram and not a 1
megabyte of ram.

besides smaller mem chips
are not manufactured in
one megabyte increments.

-- 

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
 - Systems Analyst
 - Database Developer
 - Accountancy
 - Veteran of the Armed Forces
 - Microsoft Partner
-  @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen

>
>

"klafert" <klafert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:9951DDF1-5107-4CD7-981E-5665EAC697E1@microsoft.com...
> Yes a 1 MB chip I still have the old one which is a 1 MB
>
> "C" wrote:
>
>> klafert wrote:
>> > When I tried to log in - put in my password -  my computer freezes up - then
>> > I restart the computer and it lets me log in just fine.  The computer runs
>> > fine for the most part but now and then still locks up.  Especially when
>> > idle.  I changed the ram chip and it is much better but still freezes up at
>> > Log On.  Do I need to repair my profile.  Seems much better since I changed
>> > out the ram chip - I am using Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3
>>
>> How many ram sticks do you have, only one?
>>
>> -- 
>> C
>> .
>> 
0
db
3/31/2010 4:48:10 PM
In news:hovt2b$d53$1@news.eternal-september.org,
Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> typed:

> people like you will believe _anything_ that Billy tells them.
>
> OK, you win.

Don't worry, there are more just like you, and many of them have the last
name of "MVP".

On second thought, *DO* worry.


0
Greg
3/31/2010 4:50:13 PM

Greg Russell wrote:
> "klafert" <klafert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9951DDF1-5107-4CD7-981E-5665EAC697E1@microsoft.com...
> 
> 
>>Yes a 1 MB chip I still have the old one which is a 1 MB
> 
> 
> Billy-Boy Gates stated some years ago that nobody needs more than 640K of
> memory.
> 
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9101699/The_640K_quote_won_t_go_away_but_did_Gates_really_say_it_

0
Bob
3/31/2010 6:10:50 PM

Greg Russell wrote:

> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hovr84$9cf$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> 
> 
>>>Billy-Boy Gates stated some years ago that nobody needs more than 640K of
>>>memory.
>>
>>And when he said it, it was true.
> 
> 
> No, it most certainly wasn't, and people like you will believe _anything_
> that Billy tells them.
> 
> I was running mathematical models at the time that simply couldn't be run
> with that little of memory, so they were compiled and run on 32-bit systems
> such as SunOS. The very numerous "himem" 3rd-party programs to extend the
> memory beyond the Billy-mandated 640K barrier were a drain on cpu cycles, as
> well as a significant source of additional "bugs" beyond the inherent M$
> ones.
> 


The 640 kB barrier is an architectural limitation of IBM and IBM PC 
compatible PCs. The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, was 
able to address 1024 kB (1 MB or 220 bytes), as the chip offered 20 
address lines. The lower limit was due to hardware mapping 
(memory-mapped I/O):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_memory

0
Bob
3/31/2010 6:14:46 PM
In news:%23M0oM4P0KHA.3676@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> typed:

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

No, it was an 8086.


0
Greg
4/1/2010 10:12:07 PM
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:12:07 -0700, "Greg Russell"
<grussell@invalid.con> wrote:

> In news:%23M0oM4P0KHA.3676@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
> Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> typed:
> 
> > The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
> 
> No, it was an 8086.



Sorry, but that's not correct. It was an 8088.

-- 
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
0
Ken
4/1/2010 11:41:49 PM
In news:8obar5h4gqbu5i764k11d2qrmajlu46tps@4ax.com,
Ken Blake, MVP <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:

>>> The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
>>
>> No, it was an 8086.
>
> Sorry, but that's not correct. It was an 8088.

I've still got an original IBM PC, and it states right on the processor that
it's an 8086. The 8088 was produced soon after, and I was sorry that I had
rushed into the purchase so soon.


0
Greg
4/2/2010 4:18:41 AM
On 4/1/2010 9:18 PM On a whim, Greg Russell pounded out on the keyboard

> In news:8obar5h4gqbu5i764k11d2qrmajlu46tps@4ax.com,
> Ken Blake, MVP<kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain>  typed:
>
>>>> The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
>>> No, it was an 8086.
>> Sorry, but that's not correct. It was an 8088.
>
> I've still got an original IBM PC, and it states right on the processor that
> it's an 8086. The 8088 was produced soon after, and I was sorry that I had
> rushed into the purchase so soon.
>
>

You shouldn't have been sorry. The 8086 used a 16 bit data bus and the 
8088 used an 8 bit.  The early PS/2 were based on the 8086 and ran 
faster.  The 8088 was Intel's first "dumbing down" of a processor and 
they kept that up for along time.

I purchased a TI PC because it ran at 5 MHz as opposed to IBM's 4.77, 
and it had 768K of memory and 16 plane graphics as opposed to the 640K 
and 8 plane of the IBM PC.


Terry R.
-- 
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
0
Terry
4/2/2010 4:50:48 AM

Greg Russell wrote:

> In news:%23M0oM4P0KHA.3676@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
> Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> typed:
> 
> 
>>The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
> 
> 
> No, it was an 8086.
> 
> 

Then you'll have to tell IBM that they are wrong.
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_birth.html

0
Bob
4/2/2010 12:33:44 PM
Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Then you'll have to tell IBM that they are wrong.
>http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_birth.html

Hmm... that article quotes Dave Bradley as saying "...We started to
build a prototype to take - by the end of the year - to a then
little-known company called Microsoft." That completely skips the
story of IBMers going to Digital Research first, but missing
connections with Gary Kildall, and then as a second choice going to
Seattle to see Microsoft. 

It also says that it had a color monitor with 16 colors! My
recollection - which may well be incomplete - is that we didn't get 16
colors until EGA graphics debuted, years later. Hmm...looking at it
again, it says the monitor had "16 foreground and background colors",
but that "Its graphics were in four colors". I don't remember having
any color until the Hercules cards sometime in the mid-80s.

-- 
Tim Slattery
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
0
Tim
4/2/2010 1:07:50 PM

Greg Russell wrote:

> In news:8obar5h4gqbu5i764k11d2qrmajlu46tps@4ax.com,
> Ken Blake, MVP <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
> 
> 
>>>>The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
>>>
>>>No, it was an 8086.
>>
>>Sorry, but that's not correct. It was an 8088.
> 
> 
> I've still got an original IBM PC, and it states right on the processor that
> it's an 8086. The 8088 was produced soon after, and I was sorry that I had
> rushed into the purchase so soon.
> 
> 

You got is backward. The "8086" is the better CPU with a 16 bit 
processor with an 16 bit external databus while the "8088" 16 bit 
processor with only an 8 bit external databus. Also the instruction 
queue for the 86 is 6 bytes while the 88 is only 4.

0
Bob
4/2/2010 1:13:36 PM
First IBM PC's did have a color monitor. It was however only green.
"Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message 
news:lmqbr55j17p30bi68d4hoedjr6v5o20v9o@4ax.com...
> Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Then you'll have to tell IBM that they are wrong.
>>http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_birth.html
>
> Hmm... that article quotes Dave Bradley as saying "...We started to
> build a prototype to take - by the end of the year - to a then
> little-known company called Microsoft." That completely skips the
> story of IBMers going to Digital Research first, but missing
> connections with Gary Kildall, and then as a second choice going to
> Seattle to see Microsoft.
>
> It also says that it had a color monitor with 16 colors! My
> recollection - which may well be incomplete - is that we didn't get 16
> colors until EGA graphics debuted, years later. Hmm...looking at it
> again, it says the monitor had "16 foreground and background colors",
> but that "Its graphics were in four colors". I don't remember having
> any color until the Hercules cards sometime in the mid-80s.
>
> -- 
> Tim Slattery
> Slattery_T@bls.gov
> http://members.cox.net/slatteryt 


0
Unknown
4/2/2010 3:18:34 PM

Tim Slattery wrote:

> Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Then you'll have to tell IBM that they are wrong.
>>http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_birth.html
> 
> 
> Hmm... that article quotes Dave Bradley as saying "...We started to
> build a prototype to take - by the end of the year - to a then
> little-known company called Microsoft." That completely skips the
> story of IBMers going to Digital Research first, but missing
> connections with Gary Kildall, and then as a second choice going to
> Seattle to see Microsoft. 

Timeline and sequence
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_43/b3905109_mz063.htm

> 
> It also says that it had a color monitor with 16 colors! My
> recollection - which may well be incomplete - is that we didn't get 16
> colors until EGA graphics debuted, years later. Hmm...looking at it
> again, it says the monitor had "16 foreground and background colors",
> but that "Its graphics were in four colors". I don't remember having
> any color until the Hercules cards sometime in the mid-80s.
> 

That means you could "choose between 16 colors"
http://nemesis.lonestar.org/reference/video/cga.html

0
Bob
4/2/2010 3:38:10 PM
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:18:41 -0700, "Greg Russell"
<grussell@invalid.con> wrote:

> In news:8obar5h4gqbu5i764k11d2qrmajlu46tps@4ax.com,
> Ken Blake, MVP <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
> 
> >>> The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
> >>
> >> No, it was an 8086.
> >
> > Sorry, but that's not correct. It was an 8088.
> 
> I've still got an original IBM PC, and it states right on the processor that
> it's an 8086. The 8088 was produced soon after, and I was sorry that I had
> rushed into the purchase so soon.


Well, it's hard to argue if you say that's what yours says, but see

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=274

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa031599.htm
> 

-- 
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
0
Ken
4/2/2010 3:54:48 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces: