Check http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q253/9/12.ASP
concerning Windows 95 and 98 machines with more than 512MB of RAM - maybe
(?) it will help.
Maris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Robinson" <jrobinso@pcug.org.au>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 9:47 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan 3.1.1 ?
| My impression was it was not the drivers that were the problem (maybe I
| mean not not ONLY the drivers), but memory management.
|
| For the record I use Nikonscan 3.1 on my LS2000 with single processor
| Pentium III 500MHz 768MB RAM Windows 98 non-SE, and it crashes
| regularly. It is the only programme that crashes my system reliably these
| days.
|
| There was a thread a while ago about WIn98 non-SE having problems with
more
| than 512MB RAM with Nikonscan, bit I think I had the same number of
crashes
| with less than 500MB before I upgraded. I am not sure about this so maybe
| I should try it again. Does anyone know how to set up the computer to use
| only 512 RAM from the desktop rather than removing it physically?
|
| Julian
|
| At 03:46 11/10/01, you wrote:
| >Er, I tested it on 10 different machines and it has never crashed.
| >Crashing is usually to poor drivers written by board manufactureres for
| >the USB ports, the same goes for FireWire.
| >
| >--
| >James Grove
| >james@jamesgrove.co.uk
| >www.jamesgrove.co.uk
| >www.mountain-photos.co.uk
| >ICQ 99737573
| >
| >-----Original Message-----
| >From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
| >[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
| >Sent: 10 October 2001 02:31
| >To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
| >Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan 3.1.1 ?
| >
| >
| >
| > >A new version is being beta tested by agents.
| >
| >
| >Are you suggesting the earlier versions were actually tested? In the
| >real
| >world? Amazing.
| >
| >If you think I am being too hard, this is slightly tongue in cheek, but
| >it
| >was inexcusable to unleash existing versions of Nikonscan 3 when it so
| >reliably crashes such a high percentage of computers.
|
|
|