lWindows 2000 user profile error

I had upgraded some 98SE Dell GX100 with 128 MB Ram, 40 GB HD to Windows 2000 and they worked fine for about 8 months.  The computers are on a domain and must use a given user profile.  The computers started giving an error message: Cannot load user profile, try increasing the size of your registry, then continues with "cannot load .dll files" and will not work.  I tried reloading the OS and keep getting the error message once everything is loaded back on the computer, including Symantec A/V Corporate ed.

I am working on eight of these computers...at a school, trying to have more computers for students to go online.

I tried to load XP and I get an error asking about the SCSI connection.  Tried with no luck to upgrade the bios.  Tried a new hard drive, swapped memory, still getting the same results.

Any hope for these computers?

Thanks for your time!

128 Ram is kinda low for W2K..........and you can increase the size of your Registry at System Properties/Advanced/Performance Options - Virtual Memory - Change.

Might check your Swap File size there also......I'd go 1024 Min, 1024 Max

Hit WindowsKey+Break to get into System Properties the fast way...............z

[Moderator]

3 Month old Topic...

Somebody else may benefit.......I just built a brand new W2K computer fwiw.....Talk about fast.....everything is instant...no lag/delay at all........z

[Moderator]

So you still don't get it ...right ? ?

Yes, thanks, the memory was low. Added 256 mb and it runs smooth as silk.  It would probably work better with even more, but money is an issue.  Thanks to ebay, I have upgraded about 25 of these W2K at school for about $7 each.   

Just cause a post is old is irrelevant. The information in the thread is what's important........people find them with Google.....and they don't give a flying rat's a... how old a post is.............z

Just cause a post is old is irrelevant. The information in the thread is what's important........people find them with Google.....and they don't give a flying rat's a... how old a post is.............z

and they can find the forum with google, too. and post their question, which can be answered.

Also, registry size cannot be changed, in ANY windows version, so not sure what you mean there. (virtual memory, perhaps?)

and they can find the forum with google, too. and post their question, which can be answered.

Also, registry size cannot be changed, in ANY windows version, so not sure what you mean there. (virtual memory, perhaps?)

I believe you stand corrected:




z

technically, no. That changes the <maximum> registry size. Not the size of the registry itself.

And wether changing the maximum size will help depends on how close the current size is to the maximum size; obviously if the registry size is 11mb, and the max is 70, then changing the max won't help; in this situation, it might.... but other then the "try increasing the size of your registry" advice offered in the messagebox, it doesn't add up. loading dll files don't add things to the registry.

Remember that the messagebox text is really just loaded from a resource; if the hard drive were to catch fire and make it impossible to load the user profile it would display the very same message regarding registry size, so it's not always something to be completely trusted; and given the other symptoms it would depend entirely on what the maximum size was, which is impossible to determine globally for people who stumble on this thread using a search.

The message comes from MS.

..increase your registry size...

Understanding and configuring Registry Size Limit (RSL)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/124594

How very typical.. You make a statement and I prove you wrong. So you hem and haw and come up with a bunch of gobbly gook that proves you actually weren't wrong after all........lmfao..........z

How very typical.. You make a statement and I prove you wrong. So you hem and haw and come up with a bunch of gobbly gook that proves you actually weren't wrong after all........lmfao..........z

I was. I said that you couldn't change the registry size in 2000, and evidently you can.

In fact, it's also present in NT 3.51 (and, one can assume, NT 4 as well)



Only thing left is- why 1024 and 1024 for VM size? Why not system managed?

Thank you.

I don't know what the theory behind the reg size is....I mean if it runs out of what's there does stuff start to crash? MS explains it.......but badly I think.....at least I couldn't get it after looking at it.......granted I didn't really try to understand it very hard either.

As far as the swap file....I keep a minimum 128M on the C drive.....I have 4G memory so I don't really need a swap file.....In the past I kept it on a different drive.......in fact I just remembered why I have one on C...it's cause I moved W2K to a new system I built and just had one drive initially. I think Windows complains if there's no swap file at all.....I get messages that it's increasing it cause it's too small.......but it hasn't even reached the 2nd memory stick yet...lol.

And giving it a set chunk saves it time cause it doesn't have to manage it........z

I wonder why the max size options were removed from XP? I guess it must expand it automatically, or something.

I don't think Win 9x had then either; I remember windows 95 was literally limited to 64K of something.... I looked it up, each key could only have 64K on each value.

For swap/page files, meh, I just let the system take care of it. I have 8GB of RAM so I could probably get by without one. (my last machine "only" had 1GB, and I had virtual memory turned off completely). Right now it's system managed so I have a 8GB pagefile; excessive I suppose but hey, I have plenty of space to go around.

From what I understand though Windows needs at least a certain minimum amount of virtual memory or it can only handle larger size blocks; I know for windows 3.1 regardless of how much RAM you had it was never a good idea to shut off the swap file, since without it windows could only deal with memory in 64K chunks, rather then 4K pages. I think this was true of Win 9x as well. Not sure how it translates to the NT line though.