Most Windows XP crashes are device driver related (Microsoft cites something
like 75%-80%) - since that code is invariably written by some EE (and I'm an
EE so I can bitch) who's favourite meal is spaghetti. Laptops are
notoriously problematic because corner cutting for space,power and heat is
much more common.
Photoshop is a particularly rude application in that it attempts to
calculate how much memory is available and then do its own memory managment.
But it is a myth to suggest that by allocating 100% of the physical memory
to PS you will cause the system to crash because there won't be any memory
for the OS. That simply isn't the way modern memory managing OSes work.
What is likely to happen is that PS will run interminably slowly - because
it may get into a 'pathological disk thrash' where the data that PS swaps
out to disk, results in the OS swapping in different data, which PS then
swaps back out (because both Mem mgrs are trying to figure out which piece
of data is currently irrelevant). You can prove that 100% memory allocation
isn't a problem by doing the following experiment:
1) boot XP clean
2) shut down all applets etc.
3) use task manager to figure out how much free memory you have (under
the performance tab)
4) set the PS preferences to that amount and restart PS
5) Load an image into PS that exceeds the amount of memory allocated to
PS
6) Double click on a large TIFF File to launch the default 'Windows
Image Viewer'
7) Relaunch Task Manager (CTL-ALT-DEL) and look at the memory in use
You will find that the number of allocated pages well exceends the amount of
physical memory available - and the OS still runs. Unlike Windows 9x and
the Mac OSes through ver 9, Windows 2000 and Windows XP runs the OS in a
piece of memory that is essentially protected by the processor from
applications like PS. Unfortunately, since the OS does need to gather and
release data from devices (to be able to ensure this protection for other
apps), device drivers CAN trash out OS memory.
As for procuring XP at the worst time, I'm not sure how that logic follows.
Windows Update essentially has brought almost all XP installations to the
current level of release. So unless you have refused to install the
updates, it is irrelevant as to when you purchased your particular copy of
XP.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave King" <kingphoto@mindspring.com>
To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:21 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: my XP laptop is driving me crazy
An update on what I've learned about my laptop problem, thanks to Cary.
As you can see from Cary's email quoted below (for grins, check out the
paragraph starting with "This error"), apparently it's not a hardware issue,
but rather more likely application or OS related. I can imagine it's
either, since PS6 is not "native" to XP, and I'm running upgrades 5.5 and 6
on top of v. 5. Another potential problem is I may have procured XP at the
worst possible time, coming as it did on the heels of Microsoft's decision
to address the security issues, and I have downloaded/installed at least 10
patches. In general I think XP's vaunted stability is BS given how much
crashing it's done on my laptop, and not just with PS. I've since installed
Win 2000 on my PIII 500 Dell in a dual boot config, and vastly prefer it to
XP so far, so I may eventually dump XP on the laptop and put 2000 on it too.
If I do I'd like to network the two using firewire, or should I add an
Ethernet card to the desktop and use that? I know nothing about
networking - any suggestions?
The LS-8000 scans much slower on the PIII 500 than on the Athalon 1.2, but
at least I can get back to work.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cary Enoch R... aka Enoch's Vision, Inc."
<enochsvision@earthlink.net>
To: <kingphoto@mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: [filmscanners] my XP laptop is driving me crazy
> According to my son (the last paragraph nails it)...
>
> An excerpt from MSDN:
>
> C Run-Time Error R6025
> pure virtual function call
>
> No object has been instantiated to handle the pure virtual function
> call.
>
> This error is caused by calling a virtual function in an abstract base
> class through a pointer which is created by a cast to the type of the
> derived class, but is actually a pointer to the base class. This can
> occur when casting from a void* to a pointer to a class when the void*
> was created during the construction of the base class.
>
> This documentation is talking about C++ specifically. It tells me that
> it was not a hardware problem, nor was it operator error. In layman's
> terms, these described symptoms are the result of how XP is handling a
> Photoshop-specific design implementation. By that I mean a reinstall of
> either XP or Photoshop is in order. By the way, I have never run across
> this issue in my experience.
>
>
> Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia
> -- "Behind all these manifestations is the
> one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to
> reveal this radiance through the created object." ~Joseph Campbell
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cary Enoch R... aka Enoch's Vision, Inc.
> > [mailto:enochsvision@earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Friday, 19 April, 2002 10:26
> > To: 'Dave King'
> > Subject: RE: [filmscanners] my XP laptop is driving me crazy
> >
> >
> > > It seems I may have spoken too soon:( Today it's back to
> > > freezes and crashes. Some of the error messages I've seen
> > > are "Could not complete request because of program error";
> > > "Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library Runtime Error, Program:
> > > Photoshop.exe"; "R6025-Pure Virtual Function Call".
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
