Specialty Forums
Security and Virus
General Hardware
CPUs/Overclocking
Networking
Digital Photo/Video
Office Software
PC Gaming
Console Gaming
Programming
Database
Web Development
Digital Home

General Forums
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 95/98
Windows Me
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Win Server 2008
Win Server 2003
Windows 3.1
Linux
PDAs
BeOS
Novell Netware
OpenVMS
Solaris
Disk Op. System
Unix
Mac
OS/2

Drivers
Driver Scan
Driver Forum

Software
Automatic Updates

BIOS Updates

My Computing.Net

Solution Center

Free IT eBook

Howtos

Site Search

Message Find

RSS Feeds

Install Guides

Data Recovery

About

Home
Reply to Message Icon Go to Main Page Icon

Stacks overflow

Original Message
Name: J. Glenny
Date: May 10, 2005 at 12:07:43 Pacific
Subject: Stacks overflow
OS: Win3.1/DOS6.0
CPU/Ram: AMD586upgradeP75/64Mb
Comment:
After the machine has stood for several minutes with no action and gone to energy saving mode (dark screen), pressing any key brings up the message: 'Internal stacks overflow, system halted.' and the machine locks up. Revival necessitates switching off manually, without the opportunity to close down Windows, then re-booting from scratch.

My config.sys file includes the line: Stacks=9,256. Ought I to amend this and, if so, how should I assess what values would be best?

No modifications have been done recently with which this problem might have been associated.

No lasting harm has been done on these occasions; it's just been irritating.

Thank you for any assistance.

Kind regards,

J.G


Report Offensive Message For Removal


Response Number 1
Name: mdorff
Date: May 10, 2005 at 12:36:42 Pacific
Subject: Stacks overflow
Reply: (edit)

I don't think changing your config.sys statement will help. Now days programs alocate their own stack. I changed mine to read "stacks=0,0" years ago and have never had a problem.
Hopefully someone here is familiar with the IBM and energy saving mode.
Grasping as straws, do you have something like a screen saver trying to run when it enters suspend mode?


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 2
Name: mdorff
Date: May 10, 2005 at 16:20:29 Pacific
Subject: Stacks overflow
Reply: (edit)

J,
Think back, something has to have changed.
If it used to work with stacks at 9,256 then it
still should. A hardware failure is possible, but
look at the obvious first. Have you got something
plugged in the USB port? Have you
added some new hardware or software?
If you really want to increase the stack size, try
stacks=12,256 or heaven forbid, stacks=12,512
Keep in mind that the larger the stacks, the less
memory for your programs.
But again, if it used to work with stacks=9,256
and now it doesn't, well?



Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 3
Name: J. Glenny
Date: May 10, 2005 at 18:37:35 Pacific
Subject: Stacks overflow
Reply: (edit)
Thanks Mike for your quick response.

The last modification was a couple of months ago; some time before I first noticed this problem. Having added a 2.5Gb hard disc to the original 170Mb some years ago, together with an Eidemax card to provide the necessary LBA (the BIOS is not upgradeable), I recently replaced the 170Mb with a 6.5Gb. With the Eidemax card and LBA already installed, the latest mod. was a straight swap with, apparently, no hitches. However, I have to agree that some change or other must be the cause.

I should mention also that I have tried several times unsuccessfully during the last two years or so to load NT4.0 in a dual boot arrangement, to facilitate local area networking (WFW 3.11 unfortunately does not agree with the network hardware). However, NT4.0 does not seem to like LBA being provided by the BIOS extension instead of the orignal BIOS. After each attempt, I have re-formatted the C: drive and re-loaded DOS and Windows 3.1; so I should be surprised if this were the problem.

The 'energy saving mode' words are mine. Without a screen saver set, the screen just goes black. I found many years ago that even legitimate screen savers can cause problems.

I have not altered the Stacks= statement but could do as you say and set it to 0,0. What side effects, if any, could be expected from this?

Once again many thanks for your advice.

Kind regards,

Jon G.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 4
Name: mdorff
Date: May 10, 2005 at 20:55:15 Pacific
Subject: Stacks overflow
Reply: (edit)

Check your email...


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 5
Name: Mechanix2Go
Date: May 10, 2005 at 21:06:32 Pacific
Subject: Stacks overflow
Reply: (edit)
I don't think it's your stacks= statement, but I seem to remember back in the DOS/w3 days some folks thought that the stacks=x,y should have x=[number of sectors per track on the HD], often 17.

So try 17,128

Shot in the dark.

M2


If at first you don't succeed, you're about average.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal




Use following form to reply to current message:

   Name: From My Computing.Net Settings
 E-Mail: From My Computing.Net Settings

Subject: Stacks overflow

Comments:

 
  Homepage URL (*): 
Homepage Title (*): 
         Image URL: 
 


Data Recovery Software




DSHUB24 Connection Problems

need help with dsl and dial up

novel 3.12

help mandriva install last straw!

Icon Scaling in Explorer Bar


The information on Computing.Net is the opinions of its users. Such opinions may not be accurate and they are to be used at your own risk. Computing.Net cannot verify the validity of the statements made on this site. Computing.Net and Computing.Net, LLC hereby disclaim all responsibility and liability for the content of Computing.Net and its accuracy.
PLEASE READ THE FULL DISCLAIMER AND LEGAL TERMS BY CLICKING HERE

All content ©1996-2007 Computing.Net, LLC