Prev: Can Someone please help me with my Computer stuff? 08782
Next: Wall Street Explained
From: Yousuf Khan on 28 Jan 2010 09:25
Bob I wrote:
> You don't have an IRQ conflict, you have a bad driver for the hardware
> installed. NT uses Virtual IRQs for legacy support and the number of
> items listed on a particular IRQ is immaterial.


Incorrect, my last 5 set of BSODs disagrees with you. I need to move my
ethernet IRQ or my video card IRQ to something else. The ethernet
especially, since it's the most active of the interrupts. The second
most would be the video card. The remaining 5 devices are occasional
interrupters and can remain where they are.

Yousuf Khan
From: Robert Myers on 28 Jan 2010 11:21
On Jan 28, 9:25 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bob I wrote:
> > You don't have an IRQ conflict, you have a bad driver for the hardware
> > installed. NT uses Virtual IRQs for legacy support and the number of
> > items listed on a particular IRQ is immaterial.
>
> Incorrect, my last 5 set of BSODs disagrees with you. I need to move my
> ethernet IRQ or my video card IRQ to something else. The ethernet
> especially, since it's the most active of the interrupts. The second
> most would be the video card. The remaining 5 devices are occasional
> interrupters and can remain where they are.
>
I increasingly think that you have a generic "BSOD after upgrading
motherboard without reinstalling Windows" problem.

One fix that you may or may not have tried is booting into safe mode
and forcing a reinstall of device drivers.

Robert.
From: Yousuf Khan on 28 Jan 2010 14:04
Robert Myers wrote:
> I increasingly think that you have a generic "BSOD after upgrading
> motherboard without reinstalling Windows" problem.

Sure, but that's the way I've always done things. I find the whole idea
of Windows behaving differently depending on which method you used to
install it, somewhat troublesome. Why should a pre-existing installation
of Windows be unfixable compared to a freshly installed copy? It's the
same software in both cases.

I've been able to muddle through it in the past, and fix Windows when
most other people would've just reinstalled it.

I'm also trying to buy a corporate copy of Windows 7 soon, so all this
might be moot soon. I'll have no choice but to reinstall the OS from
scratch in that case. So I don't really want to reinstall XP from
scratch now, only to do it again with Win7.

> One fix that you may or may not have tried is booting into safe mode
> and forcing a reinstall of device drivers.


It's certainly something to try. By comparison, I've had Linux installed
on this same machine for nearly as long as I've had XP, and it's not
been reinstalled either. However, it's behaving much better, it's
managed to reassign the ethernet to a different IRQ (27). There's also 3
fewer devices sharing IRQ 18 under Linux than under Windows. Here's the
"/proc/interrupts" listing from Linux:

> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
> 0: 25 0 1 IO-APIC-edge timer
> 1: 0 0 2 IO-APIC-edge i8042
> 4: 0 0 4 IO-APIC-edge
> 7: 0 0 0 IO-APIC-edge parport0
> 8: 0 0 1 IO-APIC-edge rtc0
> 9: 0 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi acpi
> 12: 0 0 4 IO-APIC-edge i8042
> 14: 0 22 4860 IO-APIC-edge pata_atiixp
> 15: 0 0 0 IO-APIC-edge pata_atiixp
> 16: 0 24 2238 IO-APIC-fasteoi ohci_hcd:usb3, ohci_hcd:usb4, HDA Intel
> 17: 2 54 22197 IO-APIC-fasteoi ehci_hcd:usb1
> 18: 0 0 187 IO-APIC-fasteoi ohci_hcd:usb5, ohci_hcd:usb6, ohci_hcd:usb7, nvidia
> 19: 0 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi ehci_hcd:usb2
> 22: 0 35 37976 IO-APIC-fasteoi ahci
> 24: 11850 0 0 HPET_MSI-edge hpet2
> 27: 0 0 289 PCI-MSI-edge eth1
> NMI: 0 0 0 Non-maskable interrupts
> LOC: 49 14223 12405 Local timer interrupts
> SPU: 0 0 0 Spurious interrupts
> CNT: 0 0 0 Performance counter interrupts
> PND: 0 0 0 Performance pending work
> RES: 12150 8982 6046 Rescheduling interrupts
> CAL: 9090 4726 6264 Function call interrupts
> TLB: 800 739 547 TLB shootdowns
> TRM: 0 0 0 Thermal event interrupts
> THR: 0 0 0 Threshold APIC interrupts
> MCE: 0 0 0 Machine check exceptions
> MCP: 1 1 1 Machine check polls
> ERR: 0
> MIS: 0
From: Robert Myers on 28 Jan 2010 16:17
On Jan 28, 2:04 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > I increasingly think that you have a generic "BSOD after upgrading
> > motherboard without reinstalling Windows" problem.
>
> Sure, but that's the way I've always done things. I find the whole idea
> of Windows behaving differently depending on which method you used to
> install it, somewhat troublesome. Why should a pre-existing installation
> of Windows be unfixable compared to a freshly installed copy? It's the
> same software in both cases.
>
I've always assumed that Windows checked certain things having to do
with the motherboard only on install. I also assume that's by design,
since Microsoft thinks you have to buy a new OEM edition for every new
motherboard.

Robert.
From: Nate Edel on 28 Jan 2010 16:40
Have you run memtest86/memtest86+ or some other memory tester?

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
posting domain | for it."
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Can Someone please help me with my Computer stuff? 08782
Next: Wall Street Explained