Hi Trev, I am not sure if you can remember me.I have Windows Me. I had some trouble with games, I couldn't play them. My message number was 17644. I tried to do all these steps that you wrote above to fix this problems. I stopped at number 4- run Direct X tests. I checked it and I found something. While checking Display I checked DirectDrewTest and Direct3D test. In both cases I got message " An error occured while setting your display to 640x480 mode with 16 bit color (high color). YOur computer may not support this mode. This is not necessarily a problem, thought some programs may not work without support for this mode." In DirectDrewTest I hot also message : " Failure at step 17 (Set Display mode to 640x480x16) HRESULT=0x80004005 (Generic failure). I got also similar message in Direct3D test, but it failed at step 10 also with Set Display Mode. Maybe this is the reason i can't play games and I just see one flash or first screen of game? I tried to install the latest version of DirectX, it was Direct8.1. I did it but I got the same messages. Trev, could you please tell me what you think about it? I hope you can help me. Thanks for your time. I appreciate that. Regards Mark

0

Hi Trev...was wondering, what is your opinion of XP? I'm debating the move up. I've had problems with ME and some plug in devices in the past and now have a new pc which the dvd drive won't recognize any discs. Wondered if XP would help me? Thanks for your opinion and for all the awesome info. Julie

0

Found this as I was (AGAIN!) trying to rid myself of the pervasive errors that seem to be pervasive to ME. Not much of a "techie", but I sure have learned a lot in the last 1+ year of owning this Pavilion. Best comprehensive advice I've come across, at least until I get down to the update drivers section. I seem to have a hybrid chip set (?!!?) and the your VIA link referred me to the manufacturer site. How do I find out who the motherboard manufacturer is? I have a 900 AMD processor and have two VIA drivers at the end of the list, as well. Southbridge? Northbridge? Ack! Anyway, your excellent explanation of #9, as well as those in the links I followed gave me a much better idea of the whys of the startup conflicts. Thanks so much for your thread! I've bookmarked computing.net for future reference.

0

Julie, I have experimented with XP a little but I never install a system on a critical PC until it is about 6 months old and has a service pack behind it so that glitches are reduced. On this system which I use daily the upgrade report threw up problems with my modem (which is only a few months old) and with a number of programs which would need to be reinstalled or removed altogether, so I won't be going anywhere in a hurry. However, when I experimented with it, I liked the look and feel of XP. It does seem more intuitive for new users. I can't comment personally on its stability yet, which MS are claiming much for (which of course acknowledges that all previous Windows versions are not particularly stable!). I am not impressed with marketing on the basis of stability, since the same technique was used with 95, 98, 98SE, ME and 2000. Why don't you have a look at the XP forum where you will be surprised to see exactly the same issues as you see here! Teri - these 2 sites will identify your motherboard for you. http://www.ami.com/support/bios.html http://www.motherboards.org/moboidtools.html “

0

Adrienne: I also have a Compaq that came with ME on it. You will find the setup files in Windows/Options/Install.. double click setup.exe, and ME will begin a fresh install, in most cases.

0

Very smooth. Only thing, DO NOT DELETE VMM32.VXD. Anything to help another problem? CTPCI9X.VXD for the Soundblaster calls for NUWAVE,DRV but that file is not available. I feel the 'call' and 'fail' during boot up delays things.

0

Trev - Thanks for the info on the motherboard - I'll try the sites. I've run into another glitch. I cannot get to my PCBios by restarting and pressing delete. It simply won't come up, although I've tried it several times. In the past I've accessed it while on the phone with tech support, so I know I at least HAD access. Any ideas? I'm using StartStop to help with the startup apps. Could that be interfering? Again, I'd appreciate any advice you might have and THANKS A MILLION for this thread! - Teri

0

How do I fix spontaneous reboot? I'm running win me on dell pentium III 733 mhz. It's driving me crazy. It only happens when I'm on the internet. Thanks for any info Philippe Dumas

0

Teri, At start up press F1 to enter into BIOS.

0

Is there a similarly informative message for Windows 2000? Thanks

0

Windows 2000 handles memory too well already.

0

I was trying out point 8 and have stumbled across this problem. My WIN_20.CAB does not have the vdmad.vxd file in its archive, will that cause a problem if i proceed to extract the rest of the files across to the system folder?

0

Hi Trev, #3,, I dont see the DMA option in Device Mngr, Is that in ME ?

0

hey trev... i was just wondering in pt.9..why you said uncheck unnecessary items except for PCHEALTH. From my understanding without it...system restore wont work. Was that your error in writing that or was it intentional.. and if so...why?

0

Dennis - firstly I said ESPECIALLY PC Health, secondly, system restore works perfectly without it. :)

0

I wonder if that's why RESTORE never worked for me? I prob'ly had PCHEALTH running because I was told by HP ¿¿¿Tech Support???that it was needed. It doesn't really matter - I DISABLED restore long ago and I don't intend to reenable it now - I was just wondering. Registry exporting and ONTRACK FIXIT UTILITIES works just fine for me. Between the two I can fix most anything so far.

0

No 1 & 13 is an eperience kes ... I don`t do the restore points tho coz I know what soft is stable and what is going to make your OS nutz ... I do the restore feature if I see a software capable of making my OS nutz ... Like the no 2(Stanby Mode) coz every Win9x OS hav that kind of problem ... Like the no 3(DMA) coz faster burning and data managements ... .... no 5 & 9 coz faster booting/starup ... .... 10(Driver update) for faster gaming/grafic and less crashes/freeze ... .. no 15 is for adv users/people who hav no trouble wit ME ... They usually know the do or not to do ... For biginers, I recomen u do the restore points... ...no 16 I usually do the `Unfragmented files` and `unfragmented free space` only using Speed Disk if the Unfragmented files drops 1 to 5 % ... If For full optimize, I usually do when I hav time/seeing my PC is slow/done a lot of moving and install/ uninstall stuff, usually stuff that use up big spaces/MB .. Just 1 thing Trev... I never hav problem with VMM32.VXD error message ... Before this I hav, but using a Voodoo3 with old driver, I think 105 ...Now I`m using the latest update driver that is v3-w9x-107.00 .. Do u recomen I do tips no 8 altho I hav no proplem with VMM32.VXD error acuring.. ???

0

No, why bother if there is no problem?

0

I am having a VMM error and i have tryed downloading a 4 in 1 driver and noting works. It kicks me out of computer games. With a blue screen saying VMM(01)+0000D2A3. HELP

0

If you have done everything above, try upgrading your video card drivers to the newest available.

0

having a problem with cd rom and cd rewriter error message is(an exeption has occured at 0028:cisd1a6 in vxd cdfs(017)+00000846 this was called from 0028:c14fobb8 in vxd cdfs(04)+0000078) had to do a re install about a week ago had this problem after reinstall any idears

0

You should post a query like this on the main board, not here. :)

0

Is there a post like this for windows xp??

0

I've no idea - so far, I specialise in ME. The reason for this is that I do not consider XP to be ready yet for a general upgrade on the PCs for which I am responsible. There are still too many legacy devices with no drivers available and too many difficulties being reported on the XP forum - just take a look. However, if I was buying a brand new PC with brand new peripherals and new versions of all programs I would probably go for XP because of the "stability" advertised and because it is obviously going to be the system of the future when it has received further work and service packs. In the meantime, Windows ME can, in my view, be made to be totally stable by doing what it says in this post. I have not had a crash or a problem in a very long time. ME offers a good balance between a system suitable for business applications and for home entertainment, games, video etc. It is particularly good for games when tweaked as above.

0

Kool tips. But i wanted to ask i disabled all power management but why isn't it a good power saver. i disabled it in the bios and my computer didn't shut down properly. So i switched it back. also i removed some startup apps etc. and acrobat 5 and msn messenger dnt run properly.

0

To whomever maintains this "list" There is some advice above that needs to be amended. Item 8 continues to propagate an old myth that originated with the BETA version of Windows 95. And that is that the vxds listed above were actually MISSING and the solution was to load them. This myth is now expanded to include Win98FE/SE/ME. And, as "most" people know, these vxds are NOT missing. To check that the files are actually being loaded (from VMM32), run with a boot log and check for yourself. Even the originator of this myth (the infamous vxd fix) admits that he was wrong, and has not updated his site in 2 years) Also, be aware that MS patches to these VXDs are applied by placing them in the \VMM32 folder, and some hardware vendors install these files. If you just blindly copy the ones from the CD (or CABs folder), you may make your pc unbootable. 12-1 Moving the swap to a separate partition on the same PHYSICAL drive, really won't help performance.It will just make the disk heads have to travel farther to get the info. A second physical drive will have benefits if in fact the swapfile is even being used. 12-2 First, if you ARE going to manage your own settings, only the MIN should be set. Second,there is NO magic number (ie:150MBs). You should monitor swapfile size with SYSMON to determine a good value BTW, do you know how LARGE the applications would have to be in order to require a GB swapfile??) Thirdly, a larger file does nothing except consume disk space Lastly, a defrag after setting the parameters does not defrag the swapfile, if that is what the intention was. IF you actually set a min/max, the file is created as contiguous and thus is not fragmented. IF you set the MIN only, you need to delete the current swapfile which will cause the newly created one to be contiguous 12-4 Before even thinking about changing the settings, monitor swapfile inuse (NOT size) to determine if the file is even being used. If only a few MBs are inuse, you will see no difference in playing with the settings.

0

Why are these posts always anonymous? Because, if the poster reads item 8 properly he/she will see that it does nothing of the sort. There was, once upon a time in the land of hushabye, such a myth, but of course the drivers are not "missing" - the situation is exactly as stated above. There are many ways to fix a corrupted vmm32.vxd The best is probably to reinstall Windows because the PC then rebuilds a hardware specific new vmm32 but if you are not into such a drastic measure, the copying of the vxd files as above will do just what it says, for many problems. Of the hundreds, in fact probably a thousand, people who have used this by now, not one has reported a problem. Thanks for all the e-mails reporting your successes...keep them coming :) As for the second point, there are many varied opinions on the topic. Renaissance Man maintains a resource post on them all, but I really can't be bothered finding it to put it here. Try point 12 if you want to and see what you think yourself. The difference is small but on the many systems on which I use it, it does make a difference. As with all of the above advice, you can return to your previous setting any time you like. I welcome the debate from the anonymous poster but not the condescending tone. These tips have been very widely and very successfully used, as any of the regulars on this forum will attest.

0

About anonymous: does it make any difference if someone calls themselves Amendment or Trev or Renaissance Man? The real PITA is when there is NO name. BTW, I always know where your post is even if you "really can’t be bothered finding" mine. Swap File Sites and Posts: http://itcp.net/~awsh/Speed_Demonz/Swapfile_Optimization/Swapfile_Optimization_01.htm http://computing.net/windows95/wwwboard/forum/106791.html http://computing.net/windows95/wwwboard/forum/106791.html http://computing.net/windows95/wwwboard/forum/105735.html http://computing.net/windows95/wwwboard/forum/105439.html http://computing.net/windows95/wwwboard/forum/105735.html http://computing.net/windowsme/wwwboard/forum/20090.html http://computing.net/windowsme/wwwboard/forum/19942.html http://computing.net/windowsme/wwwboard/forum/19090.html http://computing.net/windowsme/wwwboard/forum/13460.html http://computing.net/windowsme/wwwboard/forum/12036.html http://computing.net/windowsme/wwwboard/forum/11989.html Thank God, most of the nastiest epithets that have been hurled at me have been removed. I really do not like condescending tone either; nor do I like ad hominem attacks just because someone disagrees with me. And I don’t like whining or BS. Neither do I like cancer, AIDS, war, famine, depletion of the ozone layer, yada, yada, yada. But along with all the great stuff on this forum there’s some crap. You don't have to like it. But get used to it. I hope you take this as a kindly suggestion: when you post "How to run Windows ME well" the next time, please skip a line between numbered items--it'll make it so much easier to read. Thanks :) ============================================ Being offended is a natural consequence of leaving the house. (Fran Lebowitz)

0

Trev: If you aren't propogating the "missing vxd" myth, then why are you recommending loading JUST the 8 that are "supposedly" missing. Why not load ALL of the VMM32 files if this tip is meant to solve a "corrupted" vmm32 file? As for all the cards and letters you are receiving, I expect they are similar to all the cards and letters that the originator of the missing vxd myth was getting, and why he continued making the recommendation. As for setting the swapfile to a GB! Not a chance. There is NO benefit to a large swapfile. I don't care how many machines you have installed this on. Of course it works, but that doesn't make it a good recommendation. You also won't find it being made anywhere else on the net. THIS post may be condescending, but the original was certainly not meant to be. The recommendations you make in 8/12 are NOT being made anywhere else, and if you were to make them on other boards, you WOULD get condescending responses. The problem with tips is that a "bad" (or not good tip), may actually make a difference, and thus it is reported as being successful. This, unfortunately, does not magically turn it a good tip. Good example? In the "good old days" of Windows 95, the recommendation on the swapfile was to make it fixed, and to make it 2-2.5 times ram. We all know (at least we all should know), that this is absolutely bad advice. YET, when you made this change on Windows95, there was a benefit seen. Unfortunately, the benefit would have been a lot more (and the risks less), if we knew what we do today about not placing maximums on swapfiles.

0

RM :) You know how much I value your posts, but I lose track because there are so many good ones. Thanks for posting the links. I wasn't bothered finding it for the poster, because I tend to be too busy answering e-mails from people when I am not working - nothing to do with you, so please don't take offence. Amendment - if you read point 8 again, you will see "for example" among the vxd recommendations. Now, I'm getting back to answering queries on the board. The vxd tip will continue to work for people in some difficult vmm problem areas and good luck to them! "Good" and "bad" are your opinion. Success in fixing a problem is a positive result and that's what I look for.

0

Re: Point 8 It SPECIFICALLY states to "find these 8 drivers". Not any old vmm32 driver, or one that you may be having trouble with, but specifically the 8 that are listed. If this is NOT what is meant by item 8, then it would help, on the next rewrite, to clarify this. "Success in fixing a problem is a positive result " Unfortunately, this probably means you do more format/reinstalls than problem fixes. Positive results do not indicate that the solution is a good one. You may have solved the symptom of a problem, but not the problem itself. But, to each their own. Also, since you now have access to RM's links, which you also advocate, I recommend you re-read Adrians site on swapfile optimization. You will find that the recommendation is to NOT create a large swapfile. http://itcp.net/~awsh/Speed_Demonz/Swapfile_Optimization/Swapfile_Optimization_12.htm And that the size should be based on usage not just an arbitrary number.

0

Now, I have a little more time to think about your posts – Amendment/Amendmant – so I would like to make a final contribution to this conversation. First – who am I? I am responsible for a small number of PCs at present, 48 in all. I post almost every day on this forum except when I am away or just too plain busy. Like the other regulars, whom I like to call friends at this stage, I do it only to try to be of assistance. I teach and I learn on the forum, from shared information. The PC at home from which I post has, at a rough count, 58 major programs on it along with all the usual utilities and minor things, quite a few of the programs being games which my children use and which bring the usual complications to the operating system. Since I adopted the measures in 18106 on all of the PCs using Windows ME, there has not been one single crash, freeze or malfunction, except for one where a virus was involved. That covers a period of at least 18 months at this stage. 18106, as regulars will know, has had between 1,500 and 2,000 people referred to it over the last while by me and by many other posters (Viking, I think, said he would keep a count, but I am just working out the daily average). I post my e-mail address because it sparks off a better exchange of information. Of those people, a few e-mail me every day. That works out at about a thousand e-mails over a year. I am not recalling the e-mails as an ego massaging exercise because I don’t need that. I use the e-mails to help further and to collect information about what works for people and what doesn’t work. In all the thousand e-mails of this year, not one that I can recall has had a problem with point 8 of the post, and many, many have got out of difficulties. It is not, however, a VMM32 panacea, as I will explain below. You are, to a certain extent, correct that the wording on point 8 is woolly and I will look for more clarity next revision, but (small point) it still says “find these 8 drivers, for example” – meaning that there are more and that these are examples of some of the ones which I have known to cause trouble and to be a “fix”. I agree with you about problem/symptom. Using this “fix” may, in some cases, get the system working again by removing a recurrent crash or freeze but may not solve the original cause. Post 18106 is a digest, by nature full of short points, not long and detailed explanations. The subject of VMM32.VXD is, as you seem to know but not everybody does, a very complicated and detailed one and would take thousands of words to deal with in full detail. I am sure you also know that usually VMM32 can be rebuilt by reinstalling Windows or by some very deep and complicated registry work which I am not going to explain here. However, even when reinstalled, there have been cases of the same error continuing, nobody being able to find what it was, and yet it being removed by using this fix. So, understandably, the extremely frustrated and angry end user who has spent two or three days on it, finds the fix welcome and says thanks. Where I have posted specifically on this subject, I have sometimes recommended using these drivers one at a time to see where the problem lay. I have also recommended only using this as a “fix” in the case of an insoluble problem where all the other possible solutions that can be thought of have been tried. You are correct in saying that some patches and relevant 3rd party files are placed in the \Windows\System\VMM32 folder and it is useful to mention that as an elaboration because people should look in that folder before trying extraction of any VMM32 driver, so thanks for reminding me of it. But far more are placed in the \Windows\System\iosubsys directory so that should be checked too, if one is going to go into detail on the issue. If the one you are going to extract is there, be wary, check version numbers and dates, or take a copy. However, as far as making your PC “unbootable” goes, I have never heard of an instance of this happening. As far as I can remember, though it is a while since I read the MS articles on VMM32, Microsoft doesn’t have a problem with you loading the individual VMM32 drivers if you want to try to troubleshoot. VMM32.VXD was made into a compiled driver to increase the speed of booting the PC among other reasons, but I don’t remember MS saying that there was a harmful effect from loading individual drivers except that you wouldn’t get that speed increase. These are MS knowledge base articles relevant to VMM32.VXD and ME http://support.microsoft.com/search/preview.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q191874 http://support.microsoft.com/search/preview.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q258471 http://support.microsoft.com/search/preview.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q262672 http://support.microsoft.com/search/preview.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q262715 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q129605 These are relevant to VMM32.VXD and Windows 98 http://support.microsoft.com/search/preview.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q296579 http://support.microsoft.com/search/preview.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q194679 http://support.microsoft.com/search/preview.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q311188 http://support.microsoft.com/search/preview.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q141898 For the information of forum users, you can obtain a list of your VMM32 drivers by looking in the registry at this key, using start, run, regedit: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\VMM32Files In the PC I am using now there are over 40 drivers compiled. When posting edition 4 I think I will give some thought to doing a separate post on VMM32 altogether, which would allow much more detail. In the meantime, if a reader doesn’t keep a full system backup or a clone of the disk/partition, it is certainly worth backing up VMM32.VXD because if it completely ceases to work you can copy it back. With regard to swap file usage, after a great deal of experimentation with alternatives and, indeed, reading RM’s links (!) I have settled on what I suggest in point 12 as what I like on my systems, where there is a large hard disk and therefore no need for saving space. I have experienced a slight improvement in performance overall as a result, but the difference is slight. Since my systems don’t crash it hasn’t made any difference to crashes, but some other posters have thought it did. For an inexperienced user or someone with low demands on their system, it is probably better to just let Windows handle your virtual memory. I use a large swap file because of using video editing software in conjunction with Photoshop and having multiple files open which are very large, and it is precisely because of this type of usage that I have found my recommendation to be good. Using Norton, as I explained, puts the swapfile at the most easily accessed part of the hard disk, in one continuous space, which means less work for the system and the hard drive when working with large programs and files in constantly expanding and reducing swapfile size and placing the extra virtual memory being used, all over the hard drive. It also results, as a consequence, in less defragmentation and re-arranging of the location of files for Norton Speed Disk to do each time it defragments. So I disagree with your capitalised insistence that there is “NO” advantage. This has been discussed in depth on other posts and again, this is a digest, which users can take or leave as they wish, like all other advice on the forum, including yours. I don’t disagree with most of your other views on swapfile usage, fragmentation etc. but I won’t be changing point 12. People who want to read more about it can look up RM’s links or do a search on the forum. Also, believe it or not, I actually do “know how LARGE the applications would have to be in order to require a GB swapfile”. That was another of the little bits of condescension in your first post :) I don’t “advocate” RM’s links (although I do thank him sincerely for them) – I refer people to them for their own exploration and interest. And I choose what I read and when I read it myself. (Condescension again?) I would like to invite you to do 2 things, for the benefit of the forum. If you have actually experienced PCs becoming unbootable in the circumstances you postulate, please describe the experience, including what vxds or 3rd party software you think were responsible, in the interests of us all learning from your experience and avoiding the trouble ourselves. Secondly, and a little less seriously, please share with us your methods for reading the whole of the internet, which justify the comment “The recommendations you make in 8/12 are NOT being made anywhere else”. Being just a humble guy, I only manage about 20 million pages before breakfast and try to get around the rest after tea :) I only follow five forums and this advice has been on three of them, including the Microsoft ME forum, without attracting undue opprobrium. It is, however, quite a while ago now because I have settled on this forum as being the best one and this is the only place I actually post now, while continuing to read the others. I’m surprised you didn’t spot the deliberate error in point 16 which is awaiting the next edition – Adaware removes spyware, not, of course, Trojans. It must have been the typist, or the computer which made that error, or maybe it just crept in as the post travelled through the ether towards the great Computing.Net :) Thank you for taking the trouble to comment on my post, and perhaps you might forgive my references to condescension - it's probably just a matter of style and tone. I always feel better at the weekend. LOL

0

Trev: Thanks for taking the time to respond. I know that you honestly believe the advice in this thread, otherwise you would not be continuing to update and post it. And, yes, if you apply the information, a windows PC will actually perform correctly, but, I still (IMHO) do not believe that necessarily makes it "good" advice. An example, from a post I read a while ago. It was from a respected poster, who worked for a well known company doing PC support. The thread was in respect to the settings of vcache on Windows 98. His advice, because this was how he set up ALL his PCs, was to install 512MBs of RAM and to make Min/MaxFileCache the same at 25% of ram, 128MBs. Will this type of configuration work? Yes, of course. Is it overconfigured? Certainnly. In this case, he is primarily recommending that vcache be set as fixed, and at 25% of memory. So, anyone reading this and not understanding the ramifications of setting min/max the same, will take this advice, and on a smaller PC, set the limits on the file cache, not realizing that this is dedicating that amount of memory to just caching. This advice, from a "seasoned" veteran, is not, what I would call, "good" advice. Even though his resulting configs work ok. Re: Item 8. I'm glad to hear that you think that its a bit woolley. If you read post 19 from Chris, you will see that he has also read that one should copy ALL files referenced. My concern with item 8 is that it comes across as "How to run WinMe well" and I do not believe it will do that (on a box that is ALREADY running fine). As a troubleshooting method to try and resolve vmm32, etc problems, sure. And if that is the intent, it should be clarified on the rewrite. Re: item 12. If one takes the advice to set up a 1GB swapfile, and uses Norton to move it to the front of the drive, you now have set aside the fastest portion of your drive, for an activity that may not even be happening on the particular system. These days, with PCs commonly configured at 256MBs and above, the average PC is most likely not even using the swapfile. But, as a result of your recommendation, 1 GB of fastest area can no longer be used for files. A good approach is to use SYSMON as you run your normal (and heavier) mix of programs, and then set the MIN for the swapfile around 20MBs higher than that monitored (swapfile size NOT swapfile inuse). (note that this is a flaw on Adrians site, since he shows inuse being monitored not size. In use is not relevant when setting the size, since windows will allocate space, thus needing size, but never use it (no inuse)) "For an inexperienced user or someone with low demands on their system, it is probably better to just let Windows handle your virtual memory" - I agree, and this should be included in item 12, since on larger newer machines, there is probably no benefit in changing the settings since the file is either not used, or used sparingly. "So I disagree with your capitalised insistence that there is “NO” advantage" My NO advantage, was that there is NO advantage to a LARGE swapfile. The advantages you indicate are achievable using a swapfile that is correctly sized for the running environment. "means less work for the system and the hard drive when working with large programs and files in constantly expanding and reducing swapfile size" - If a MIN has been set and the swapfile moved to the front of the drive, there will not be any expanding and reducing of the file. IF this is happening, than the size has been set incorrectly. "I won’t be changing point 12" - The item starts with "for a general performance boost". On a 256 and up machine (and depending on what is running, even on a 128 machine), this is probably not true, since the swapfile is not even being used. Minimally, a sentence needs to be added that indicates, for the majority of users, just let Windows manage it. " If you have actually experienced PCs becoming unbootable in the circumstances you postulate," I'm not sure what you are referring to. I can't see anywhere that I was talking about unbootable PCs. Re: the thread in general In the introduction, you say that " I do these with a new system anyway, just so it runs well.". This, to me, says that you take ALL of these actions as you set up a new box, INCLUDING the "woolley" item 8. Since you have already indicated that ALL of the vxds are not to be copied, and on a new box you have yet to run into vxd issues, what files are you specifically recommending to copy? Your rewrite should address this.

0

Response 33 "If you just blindly copy the ones from the CD (or CABs folder), you may make your pc unbootable"

0

Aha, thanks. I have never seen that happen, so that was speculation. (and I did say "may") In the case of vxds that have been placed there by a hardware vendor, in order to support the hardware, my "guess" would be that replacing one of their vxds with a windows version, would result in an unbootable or BSOD situation. The point is that these files should not just be "blindly" copied. If files already exit in the vmm32 directory, they have been placed there for a reason, by either a hardware vendor or by a windows update.

0

I have never seen it happen either. Sometimes a phrase like that scares people unnecessarily. And I have copied vxds a huge number of times, with a lot of success in curing seemingly inexplicable crashes and hangs. Anyone worried about it only has to make a system backup before starting.

0

That's fair. Again though, the recommendation should be to either ensure you have a system backup or backup any files in the vmm32 directory before replacing them. I do know that there have been windows updates, that update the vmm32 vxds this way. So, if someone were to replace them while troubleshooting, something, sometime, somewhere else may fail.

0

This post has now been replaced by an updated and more thorough version at http://www.computing.net/windowsme/wwwboard/forum/24159.html

0