Sweet! Thanks for that input HBG - Maybe that will work for SiGiD and others too.

That seems to imply there was an update specifically for the IE7 problem. Is that how it was listed?

_________________
Bill, AFE7Ret
Freedom is NOT Free!

Greetings,

Thanks D_G - it looks like that one does support IE7 - I suspect more then will follow. Of course, this all assumes nosirrah was talking about slipstreams.

_________________
Bill, AFE7Ret
Freedom is NOT Free!

Awesome input Bill thank you
I admire the IE7 for the ease of removalfor all BHO and Active X programs made easy. thanks microsoft!

In regards to The CastleCops MRP.
Why not an online scanner??
for trojans like a-squared.
http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/ax/

Anti-Trojan, Anti-Worm, Anti-Dialer, Anti-Rootkit and Anti-Spyware all in one program! a-squared Anti-Malware - Malware scanner to remove and delete malicious software.

Test your system with the a-squared scanner for Trojans, Backdoors, Worms, Dialers, Spyware/Adware, Keyloggers, Rootkits, Hacking Tools, Riskware and TrackingCookies. Completely free directly from the web browser. No extra download and no installation with registration required. If you have questions regarding detected Malware, please post them in our <a href="http://forum.emsisoft.com/" target="_blank"> Discussion Forum</a>

Note: The a-squared Web Malware Scanner can free your PC from Malware, but it does not offer long-term protection against Malware infection! For constant protection you need the Background Guard, which is only provided in the <a href="/en/software/antimalware/">a-squared Anti-Malware</a>

I recently experienced this same error on a customers computer after installing updates.

One thing I see as a possibility... I know for a fact that i personally modify the Page File settings on every machine I configure. I create a new partition for the page file to reside and manually remove the page file from the system drive. I set the size to 4096 (the maximum) and this is how I run.

Is it possible that our intervention or manual over riding of the page file system settings is what causes this? Could it be that the updates mistakenly EXPECT the page file to be located on the system drive? How many normal people are going to mess with those settings anyway, for fear of messing up their computer? That would explain why not so many users experience this problem. Everyone reporting here seems to be pretty familiar with Windows, technology, etc... so have all of us, in some way, modified our Page File settings?

Hi Sam. Interesting theory about the page file. However, while Windows does indeed expect a Page File to exist, I don't think its location matters as I do something similar as you - that is, I immediately put the page file on a small dedicated partition - on a second drive if one is available, and I have not had the problem. So, .

As a side note - 4096??? Don't you think that is overkill? It has been my experience that folks with 1Gb of RAM rarely, if ever, really need a Page File, and it is even less needed for folks with more than 2Gb of RAM - even with dual-core CPUs.

I recommend a look at Task Manager > Performance and check the Peak Commit Charge (K). This is the maximum amount of memory in Kb the system has needed since the last boot. If there is 1Gb or more of RAM, I suspect the Peak has not exceed that total RAM. That indicates the OS does not need that extra working space. If it has exceeded the total RAM, it will not be by much, certainly nothing approaching 4Gb.

That makes sense to me too because modern CPUs have large amounts of on-die L1 and L2 cache in addition to large chunks of very high speed RAM just a quick front side bus trip away. You don't want the CPU waiting for data - which it does with data stored on disk. And let's not forget all but budget drives come with at least 8mb of buffer, with 16mb becoming common.

But you can't just do away with the PF because Windows expects one to exist, even when there is plenty, much faster, RAM available. If it can't find one, it will create a new one, using MS defaults, which generally is the OLD standard of 1.5 X RAM on C: drive, and it will use a dynamically sized PF, which many, including myself, don't like on drives used for other storage.

The other problem is that Windows will use whatever memory it can find and must then eat resources to manage it - even if it is located on the ssllllloooooowwwwwwww hard drive. So, some folks, like me, believe it is best to set a small fixed PF size when you have lots of RAM. My PF with 1Gb of RAM is set to 512Mb Initial and 512Mb Maximum. I can honestly say performance of my PCs has not been affected by using that logic. Windows will let you go as small as 2Mb - which I have seen used on a couple Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 game systems running 4Gb of RAM with no apparent impact on performance at all.

A PF is very important with smaller amounts of RAM as the OS consumes a big chunk just for itself, and so needs more for assigned tasks. This is a significant reason for the dramatic increase in performance when bumping up a 256Mb system to 1Gb - the HD is not getting hammered all the time and can attend to other requests.

Something to chew on.

_________________
Bill, AFE7Ret
Freedom is NOT Free!

welldone,thanks.

Thanks deyamag - I am glad this thread is still of some help.

_________________
Bill, AFE7Ret
Freedom is NOT Free!