|
|
|
Missing or Corrupted File
|
Original Message
|
Name: Tom Paley
Date: April 30, 2003 at 16:48:25 Pacific
Subject: Missing or Corrupted File OS: 98SE CPU/Ram: AMDAnthon 1250 / 512
|
Comment: On start up I get an error message: "The following file is missing or corrupted. C:"Windows\Systrm\Himem.sys" There is an error in Config.sys file line 8. (Which is the file above). I have low resources issues and am trying to fix the problem. I've removed unneeded background programs and have cleaned out temp files and other stuff according to a Norton Support page, edited the regisry and still no improvement. Does anyone have a solution.
Report Offensive Message For Removal
|
|
Response Number 3
|
Name: DAVEINCAPS
Date: April 30, 2003 at 20:48:49 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)Maybe you misspelled the error message but C:"Windows\Systrm\Himem.sys should be: c:\windows\system\himem.sys Also, unless you moved it, himem.sys is in the windows directory and not the windows\system directory. The actual line in config.sys should be: device=c:\windows\himem.sys It might be easier if you posted back the contents of config.sys and autoexec.bat.
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 4
|
Name: DAVEINCAPS
Date: April 30, 2003 at 21:10:21 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)Oh, and try reducing your RAM to 256 or even 128. I'll bet your low resource problems go away. Default 98 configuration doesn't do well with lots of memory.
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 5
|
Name: DAVEINCAPS
Date: May 1, 2003 at 06:45:42 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)AUTOEXEC.BAT is as follows: rem - By Windows Setup - C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\MSCDEX /D:MSCD001 /M:8 @ECHO OFF PROMPT $P$G SET TEMP=C:\TEMP SET TMP=C:\TEMP PATH=C:\WINDOWS;C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND;C:\DOS;C:\ rem - By Windows Setup - LH C:\MOUSE\MOUSE.COM @SET CLASSPATH=C:\PROGRA~1\PHOTOD~1.0\ADOBEC~1 SET ProgramFiles=C:\Program Files CONFIG.SYS is as follows: DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\setver.exe DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\HIMEM.SYS DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\EMM386.EXE NOEMS DOS=HIGH FILES=200 DEVICE=C:\CDROM\SJCDAPI.SYS /D:MSCD001 BUFFERS=40,0 DEVICE="C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\HIMEM.SYS" STACKS=12,256 I guess I did miss type but notice line 2 and line 8. line 2 seems correct by you and others. What do i do to line 8. I do not have a W98SE disc. My OS is an OEM version and the CD was not supplied. I do have a First Edition W98. Can I use this to extract files? Being just an average computer guy I bought more ram (256meg) to get to 512 hoping to see resources improve. I saw maybe 3% improvement now at 62% just running Windows only. Maybe the original memory is bad?
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 6
|
Name: Tom Paley
Date: May 1, 2003 at 07:00:52 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)Guess I don't know how to reply to the advice on this site. Above is my responce to DAVEINCAPS.
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 7
|
Name: ChrisE
Date: May 1, 2003 at 07:01:04 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)Hi. What I would do with line 8 is rem it out. Make sure that config.sys is not read only (right click it and choose properties) and then put the cursor at the beginning of line 8 and type rem followed by a space. Save and reboot. If you problem goes away, great, if not go back into config.sys and delete the rem at the beginning of the line. Good luck ChrisE
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 8
|
Name: TopFarmer
Date: May 1, 2003 at 07:10:00 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)do as chrise says above or run msconfig and uncheck line 8. I suspect you low resoures is do the the Files=200 and Buffers=40.0. If im not wrong the Files=200 tells win. to save memory for upto 200 programs to be loaded. After you get himen.sys corrected try and lower both Files and Buffers by at lest half and check you resorses. Somesone may post with better setting for the two.
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 9
|
Name: DAVEINCAPS
Date: May 1, 2003 at 13:11:31 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)Yeah, remove line 8. Temporarily remove the FILES= BUFFERS= STACKS= lines. During an upgrade from win 3.1, 98 will remove those lines so they're probably not needed. They can be used but like TopFarmer, I'm not sure of their optimum settings. I recall some Microsoft articles on the subject but don't have the specific URL's to them. Have you tried removing some of the RAM?
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 10
|
Name: Tom Paley
Date: May 2, 2003 at 06:33:27 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)None of this seems to help. In fact resources dropped to 58% running windows only and to 38% when on the internet. I changed all the settings back and am still stuck @58%. Removing ram doesn't seem to make sense because I had the problem with only 256 meg then put in another 256 to see if it would help. Only marginal improvement occured. What I havn't done yet is see if the original memory chip may be bad.
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 11
|
Name: Tom Paley
Date: May 2, 2003 at 06:48:46 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)Do you think it would help if I upgraded to Windows XP Pro? I assume the large physical memory issue would be resolved.
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 12
|
Name: DAVEINCAPS
Date: May 2, 2003 at 12:46:25 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)I'm sure XP would manage the memory better. I've only put more than 128 meg in one or two computers. 98 came out when 32 meg was about average. It apparently wasn't designed or tested for large amounts of RAM. Out of memory errors are common for RAM greater than 786 meg. Above 1 gig many people experience a problem with continuous rebooting. Some of these problems are helped by modifying the startup files. There's some info in this previous post: http://computing.net/windows95/wwwboard/forum/134134.html Even with these modifications large amounts of memory didn't translate to better performance. The caching ablility of the chipset is also a factor. Older pentium boards could only cache up to 64 meg. Having more than that often resulted in a decrease in performance. Of course your board will cache more than that and as long as both internal and external caching is enabled in cmos that shouldn't be a factor. But it's helpful to know. But after saying all that, if 256 didn't alter the figures then I doubt the amount of memory is a factor. Do you actually notice a performance decrease or are you relying on the resource figure? I've never paid any attention to those figures anyway.
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 14
|
Name: Tom Paley
Date: May 5, 2003 at 02:37:04 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)I'll have to admit that I've been monitoring resources in My Computer Properties. But I have been getting low resources warnings and blue screens ..... I'm preparing to load XP. Looks like I have to download a bunch of patches first.
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
Use following form to reply to current message:
|
|

|