cluberti

Happy birthday, old man

You have to remember that GDI isn't using "memory" as in *RAM*, but "memory" as in *Virtual Address Space*, which can be mapped into RAM or paged into the page file as the memory manager determines - remember that an application nor even the Windows kernel controls access to physical RAM, only the kernel memory manager does. The concept of "RAM" is foreign to the OS, it only understands "memory" as *Virtual Address Space". Note that also you have a *theoretical* limit of 65,536 GDI objects per session, and 10,000 per process - I say theoretical because you can indeed run out with fewer GDI objects consumed because each GDI object also consumes a small amount of kernel pool, so you can run out of available pool to service GDI objects sooner than the theoretical. You could increase the per-process object limit by modifying the GDIProcessHandleQuota value under HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Windows - note that you can add any number here for a limit, but anything above 12,000 will rarely give you any increase above this due to system resource constraints on x86. Also, note that GDI is allocated out of desktop heap, and given the symptoms you provided it sounds more like you're hitting a resource limitation in desktop heap, rather than running out of GDI objects (you're failing to allocate desktop heap for new GDI objects, not hitting a GDI limitation itself). You could increase your desktop heap allocation in Session View space from 20MB all the way up to 48MB by modifying the registry key as per the link above. However, note that Session View space is limited on x86, and increasing desktop heap means you're decreasing some other portion of this resource region (allocated dynamically on boot). Also note I assume you would not be using the /3GB switch, which further reduces kernel memory space to 1GB, which means your session view space would be even more limited in it's allocations if you modify this resource. I would suggest upgrading to an x64 Windows OS (and maybe adding a bit more RAM if necessary to support said OS) if you really need that many GDI-hungry applications open at once. The 32bit architecture has it's limits, and right now you're bumping into one of them.

In general, a user is not banned unless they violate the terms of the forum rules. Banned users are generally either spamming, promoting, discussing, or providing cracks/warez/etc, or have violated one of the other rules of the boards. Unless someone violates an auto-ban rule (like discussing/providing warez, for instance), warnings are given before a ban would be considered.

These are the same folks that buy 1TB hard drives and complain when Windows uses 20GB. <sigh>

Not only that, in general Vista is caching the memory via Superfetch, so that things it sees you do most often are already loaded into RAM so as to make the machine run faster. If you decide to run something that isn't cached already, Vista will clear some of the cache and load whatever of your program the memory manager decides should be in RAM, into RAM. If only I had a dime for every time someone misunderstood Vista RAM usage and Superfetch, I wouldn't be rich but I would have lots of dimes . From TFA:

Post the mdmp file?

Huh? I'm confused - what flaw? Just because software uses a network doesn't make it flawed, so I'm confused as to what flaw you speak of.

I don't game, which will explain the video card choice. However, I do write/compile a decent amount of code, play some videos, etc. with my main non-work PC at home, so I finally built a new rig to replace this old AMD Athlon 3700 from 2004: CoolerMaster Cosmos 1000 Case Enermax MODU82+ 625W PSU Asus P5Q Deluxe motherboard Intel Q9550 CPU G.Skill 4GBx2 DDR2 800 (6-6-6-18) HIS Radeon 3650 512MB GDDR3 WD 3200AAKSx2 320GB HDD (RAID1)

WHQL

Well, I'd have to agree 2000 is faster and smaller than XP or Vista, because it's basically the NT4 kernel with plug and play and the 98 desktop. Considering most of it's code is from 1993 - 1998, yes, it's probably faster on a 2GHz machine with 512MB of RAM when it's kernel was designed for 64MB of RAM and <500MHz chips. But for stability, that's harder to quantify. If you experience stability with 2000, great. However, it is really quite easy to make XP (and even Vista) just as performant and stable. Otherwise, glad to hear you fixed your issue with schloss' assistance.

I don't game, which will explain the video card choice. However, I do write/compile a decent amount of code, play some videos, etc. with my main non-work PC at home, so I finally built a new rig to replace this old AMD Athlon 3700 from 2004: CoolerMaster Cosmos 1000 Case Enermax MODU82+ 625W PSU Asus P5Q Deluxe motherboard Intel Q9550 CPU G.Skill 4GBx2 DDR2 800 (6-6-6-18) HIS Radeon 3650 512MB GDDR3 WD 3200AAKSx2 320GB HDD (RAID1)

Well, best thing to do is to first gather some data from the next dump you have, and maybe we can help: http://www.msfn.org/board/Creating-memory-dumps-t90244.html

The behaviors you describe are really quite random (although it's odd that another same laptop is exhibiting the exact same symptoms). If you can, I'd grab a Vista DVD from someone you know (or other means) and install *just* Vista SP1 + updates, then install *just* Office+OneNote. See if you repro the problems along the way doing that - if you do, that leaves only the hardware to blame (somewhere). If it only repros with the Dell disc(s), consider them garbage and use the Vista DVD to reinstall. You shouldn't need to enter any key, as the default Vista install will work unactivated for 30 days, and this should be only a few-hour test.

I honestly can not think of any particular reason someone would want to do this, unless they're viewing multi-gigabyte sized documents inside the browser. 32bit add-ons won't work meaning lots of pages won't render, for starters, and there are few to no 64bit add-ons for most of the commonly-used plugins today, and that won't change until there is no more 32bit browser standard with the OS, I'd wager. And if you're opening multi-gigabyte documents in a browser, that seems woefully inefficient and painful to endure...

It's definitely a printer driver, and not one that ships on the Vista disc. You should look in the uninstall a program applet under programs in the control panel to see what printer or camera software is installed.

Probably want to try compressing and uploading again: BugCheck 50, {ba197009, 0, b5a3b64e, 0} ***** Debugger could not find nt in module list, module list might be corrupt, error 0x80070057. ************************************************************************** THIS DUMP FILE IS PARTIALLY CORRUPT. KdDebuggerDataBlock is not present or unreadable. ************************************************************************** Unable to read PsLoadedModuleList ************************************************************************** THIS DUMP FILE IS PARTIALLY CORRUPT. KdDebuggerDataBlock is not present or unreadable. ************************************************************************** KdDebuggerData.KernBase < SystemRangeStart Windows XP Kernel Version 2600 MP (2 procs) Free x86 compatible Product: WinNt, suite: TerminalServer SingleUserTS Kernel base = 0x00000000 PsLoadedModuleList = 0x8055d720 Debug session time: Fri Sep 26 23:57:42.687 2008 (GMT-4) System Uptime: 1 days 21:48:21.366 ************************************************************************** THIS DUMP FILE IS PARTIALLY CORRUPT. KdDebuggerDataBlock is not present or unreadable. ************************************************************************** Unable to read PsLoadedModuleList ************************************************************************** THIS DUMP FILE IS PARTIALLY CORRUPT. KdDebuggerDataBlock is not present or unreadable. **************************************************************************

I've only had one card die on me, it was a GeForce 8800 GT back in May, and it was about 3 months old. It started overheating and outputting lines in the display. I replaced it with another 8800 GT, and no problems thus far with the new card.

Considering it's ~2% of installed PCs out there, you might be able to consider that their target market for Windows is XP and Vista, where the majority of Windows users currently are.

Hyper-V does have one edge for Windows shops - if you purchase Datacenter (~$3800/license), you get unlimited VM licensing for hosts running on that host, which can be a huge cost savings for consolidation or buildout of Windows servers. With ESX(i), you still need a license per Windows install.

[quote name='schloss' post='798918' date='Sep 24 2008, 10:40 AM'][i]Source: Inside Windows, Third Edition, chapter 7: Memory Management[/i] The authors of that book are David A Solomon and Mark E Russinovich. David Solomon was given access to the source code of Windows by Dave Cutler at Microsoft and Mark Russinovich needs no introduction. If anyone is going to contradict these two guys you need a lot more evidence than personal opinions! One tiny piece of that evidence might be that the Microsoft link in the OP (contradicting him) has been pulled. There's also a Microsoft written PowerShell script that references IoPageLockLimit, but when you trace the reference link back, it goes nowhere too, because the one thing Microsoft then [i]don't[/i] do is mention IoPageLockLimit.[/quote] [url="http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showuser=202233"]@schloss[/url], Please check your PM.

Either a L3 switch that allows for QoS capabilities, or an application firewall (Like ISA 2006) with bandwidth management software installed (Like BandwidthSplitter) that can handle the traffic at L3 as well. Note that an open-source product like smoothwall can do basic QoS, but you need to purchase one of the non-free versions for more granular control.

Consider ITMU. This page includes the tool, documentation, and videos. Should be what you need.

Yeah, that pretty much leaves the mass storage drivers section.

He wants you to do it for him, it seems. I'm sorry but the documentation above is more than adequate - download VMWare or Virtual PC, and do some trial-and-error testing. If that's too difficult (and for some it may be), look into MDT 2008 or vLite, both of those provide automation (MDT being less automation and less "easy", but VERY powerful feature-wise, whereas vLite gives minimal additional feature tweaking but is heavily automated).

Wow, that's awesome (/sarcasm). OK, so removing the image and plopping it back down didn't work, so how did you capture the WIM? If the sysprep worked (rebooting it and it worked) then it's something to do with either the WIM capture, or the WIM laydown back onto the disk that's the problem. How exactly did you capture the box?