Windows 2000 Changing Registry Size

  • Thread starter Thread starter John John (MVP)
  • Start date Start date
J

John John (MVP)

Please adjust your clock and or Timezone, you are posting in the future.

It seems to me like the limit is set pretty high. Usually when you get
a Registry Size Limit warning an increase of 1MB is sufficient. If you
set this limit too high it may cause problems with the way the memory
pools are allocated, it's a long complicated story, suffice to say that
you should not go crazy with the Registry Size Limit. What is the
current size of your registry?

Please do not use registry cleaners on your Windows 2000 installation!
These cleaners do more harm than good, you have worked long and hard to
set your machine to your liking and to have it purr like a kitten, if
you want to ruin your work and the stability of your installation then
use a cleaner, if you don't want to wreck your installation keep
cleaners away from your machine.

You can "compact" the registry, that is not the same as cleaning it, you
can safely use NTREGOPT to do this:
http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/ To back up the
registry you can use the Backup utility to create an Emergency Repair
Disk (ERD) http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322755 .

John

DaffyD® wrote:

> A couple of times now when I've run Spybot S&D I received that message that
> the registry size was too small. I know how to increase it and now it's set
> at 100 MB. If that is too large, what is the typically recommended size?
> How would I go about cleaning up the registry so that I could reduce its
> size?
 
A couple of times now when I've run Spybot S&D I received that message that
the registry size was too small. I know how to increase it and now it's set
at 100 MB. If that is too large, what is the typically recommended size?
How would I go about cleaning up the registry so that I could reduce its
size?
--
DaffyD®

If I Knew Where I Was I'd Be There Now.
 
"DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
news:eyuUSL7FJHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> The clock on the taskbar shows the correct time, time zone, and date. It
> also looks fine when I look at the date/time posted in OE (my news reader)
> so I'm not sure why you are seeing it differently.
>

Your clock is definitely out of tune with the rest of the world. You're
posting perhaps 12 hours in the future, maybe some am/pm confusion?
 
In news:eyuUSL7FJHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
DaffyD® <daffyd@woohoo.com> typed:

> The clock on the taskbar shows the correct time, time zone, and date.
> It also looks fine when I look at the date/time posted in OE (my news
> reader) so I'm not sure why you are seeing it differently

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:16:25 -1600

The UTC offset can be no greater than ±1200, and your headers have -1600
which places you across the International Dateline where you would be +0800
which is "in the future."
 
My reply is at the bottom of your sent message.

In news:eyuUSL7FJHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
DaffyD® <daffyd@woohoo.com> typed:


> Right now, the current registry size is 39 MB. Can you tell me what the
> optimum maximum size should be? And thanks for the warning about registry
> cleaners. I haven't used any in about 8 years but it's good to be reminded
> not to use them. .

In addition to the above advice from John John I would add that I have yet
to see an increase in performance or stability from compacting the registry
either. Do I clean my registry? Yes, by hand and ONLY when I absolutely
must. Orphaned reg entries have done no harm in all of these years. If I do
let an application perform that for me that application is no longer
available in the format it once was so I've not cleaned a registry since.

To give my OPINION about your question. No more than 2 MB bigger than is
required. Setting it too large can make for issues. Windows has seemingly
always done a decent job at managing it though so you might want to trust
that 2k is as stable as you're wanting. As already said, don't mess with it.
You have what you want? Stop poking. :) Really. I learned all I know via
scholastic and geeking. I broke EVERYTHING. "If it ain't broke, tweak it."
Don't... If it is working then let it work. Trust me on this one. Secure it,
get your apps installed, setup the way you want, image it, secure it, image
it again, and the let it do what it was meant to do.

--
Galen (Not Current MS-MVP)

My Geek Site: http://kgiii.info
Web Hosting: http://whathostingshould.be

"In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason
backwards. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a
very easy one, but people do not practise it much. In the every-day affairs
of life it is more useful to reason forwards, and so
the other comes to be neglected. There are fifty who can reason
synthetically for one who can reason analytically." - Sherlock
Holmes
 
You are definitely posting in the future, just look at the replies to
your posts, they are shown posted many hours before your posts.

Setting your RSL to 50MB should be sufficient, if you get more warnings
increase it in small increments of 1 or 2MB.

John

DaffyD® wrote:
> The clock on the taskbar shows the correct time, time zone, and date. It
> also looks fine when I look at the date/time posted in OE (my news reader)
> so I'm not sure why you are seeing it differently.
>
> Right now, the current registry size is 39 MB. Can you tell me what the
> optimum maximum size should be? And thanks for the warning about registry
> cleaners. I haven't used any in about 8 years but it's good to be reminded
> not to use them. .
>
> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:ObvKg2yFJHA.5036@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>>Please adjust your clock and or Timezone, you are posting in the future.
>>
>>It seems to me like the limit is set pretty high. Usually when you get
>>a Registry Size Limit warning an increase of 1MB is sufficient. If you
>>set this limit too high it may cause problems with the way the memory
>>pools are allocated, it's a long complicated story, suffice to say that
>>you should not go crazy with the Registry Size Limit. What is the
>>current size of your registry?
>>
>>Please do not use registry cleaners on your Windows 2000 installation!
>>These cleaners do more harm than good, you have worked long and hard to
>>set your machine to your liking and to have it purr like a kitten, if
>>you want to ruin your work and the stability of your installation then
>>use a cleaner, if you don't want to wreck your installation keep
>>cleaners away from your machine.
>>
>>You can "compact" the registry, that is not the same as cleaning it, you
>>can safely use NTREGOPT to do this:
>>http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/ To back up the
>>registry you can use the Backup utility to create an Emergency Repair
>>Disk (ERD) http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322755 .
>>
>>John
>>
>>DaffyD® wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A couple of times now when I've run Spybot S&D I received that message
>
> that
>
>>>the registry size was too small. I know how to increase it and now it's
>
> set
>
>>>at 100 MB. If that is too large, what is the typically recommended size?
>>>How would I go about cleaning up the registry so that I could reduce its
>>>size?
>>
>
>
 
Galen wrote:

> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message.
>
> In news:eyuUSL7FJHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
> DaffyD® <daffyd@woohoo.com> typed:
>
>
>
>>Right now, the current registry size is 39 MB. Can you tell me what the
>>optimum maximum size should be? And thanks for the warning about registry
>>cleaners. I haven't used any in about 8 years but it's good to be reminded
>>not to use them. .
>
>
> In addition to the above advice from John John I would add that I have yet
> to see an increase in performance or stability from compacting the registry
> either. Do I clean my registry? Yes, by hand and ONLY when I absolutely
> must. Orphaned reg entries have done no harm in all of these years. If I do
> let an application perform that for me that application is no longer
> available in the format it once was so I've not cleaned a registry since.
>
> To give my OPINION about your question. No more than 2 MB bigger than is
> required. Setting it too large can make for issues.

I think I should clarify that having the limit itself set to a large
value usually won't affect anything as such, the system won't use the
space unless it needs it. On the other hand, the limit should not be
set too high as to allow applications to fill the paged pool with
registry data, setting the value to a realistic value will allow the
registry to grow conservatively and function properly, and it will give
you warnings when the registry size is growing at unusual rates,
something that may be completely normal but something that at other
times may need further investigation. More information can be found here:

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

Registry Size Limit Change Results in PagedPoolSize Change
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140364/en-us

While on the subject of Registry Size it should be noted that the System
hive is one important hive that should never be allowed to grow
unchecked, to succesfully boot Windows must be able to load this hive,
if it becomes too large Windows 2000 may not be able to load it during
the early booting stages when available memory is limited to 16MB. More
information about this can be found in these articles:

The System hive memory limitation is improved in Windows Server 2003
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302594

Your computer does not start if the SYSTEM hive is too large
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306038/en-us

Error Message: Windows Could Not Start Because the Following File Is
Missing or Corrupt: \Winnt\System32\Config\Systemced
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=269075

John
 
The clock on the taskbar shows the correct time, time zone, and date. It
also looks fine when I look at the date/time posted in OE (my news reader)
so I'm not sure why you are seeing it differently.

Right now, the current registry size is 39 MB. Can you tell me what the
optimum maximum size should be? And thanks for the warning about registry
cleaners. I haven't used any in about 8 years but it's good to be reminded
not to use them. .

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:ObvKg2yFJHA.5036@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Please adjust your clock and or Timezone, you are posting in the future.
>
> It seems to me like the limit is set pretty high. Usually when you get
> a Registry Size Limit warning an increase of 1MB is sufficient. If you
> set this limit too high it may cause problems with the way the memory
> pools are allocated, it's a long complicated story, suffice to say that
> you should not go crazy with the Registry Size Limit. What is the
> current size of your registry?
>
> Please do not use registry cleaners on your Windows 2000 installation!
> These cleaners do more harm than good, you have worked long and hard to
> set your machine to your liking and to have it purr like a kitten, if
> you want to ruin your work and the stability of your installation then
> use a cleaner, if you don't want to wreck your installation keep
> cleaners away from your machine.
>
> You can "compact" the registry, that is not the same as cleaning it, you
> can safely use NTREGOPT to do this:
> http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/ To back up the
> registry you can use the Backup utility to create an Emergency Repair
> Disk (ERD) http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322755 .
>
> John
>
> DaffyD® wrote:
>
> > A couple of times now when I've run Spybot S&D I received that message
that
> > the registry size was too small. I know how to increase it and now it's
set
> > at 100 MB. If that is too large, what is the typically recommended size?
> > How would I go about cleaning up the registry so that I could reduce its
> > size?
>
 
DaffyD® wrote:

> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:OwwYkq$FJHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>>Galen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My reply is at the bottom of your sent message.
>>>
>>>In news:eyuUSL7FJHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>>DaffyD® <daffyd@woohoo.com> typed:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Right now, the current registry size is 39 MB. Can you tell me what the
>>>>optimum maximum size should be? And thanks for the warning about
>
> registry
>
>>>>cleaners. I haven't used any in about 8 years but it's good to be
>
> reminded
>
>>>>not to use them. .
>>>
>>>
>>>In addition to the above advice from John John I would add that I have
>
> yet
>
>>>to see an increase in performance or stability from compacting the
>
> registry
>
>>>either. Do I clean my registry? Yes, by hand and ONLY when I absolutely
>>>must. Orphaned reg entries have done no harm in all of these years. If I
>
> do
>
>>>let an application perform that for me that application is no longer
>>>available in the format it once was so I've not cleaned a registry
>
> since.
>
>>>To give my OPINION about your question. No more than 2 MB bigger than is
>>>required. Setting it too large can make for issues.
>>
>>I think I should clarify that having the limit itself set to a large
>>value usually won't affect anything as such, the system won't use the
>>space unless it needs it. On the other hand, the limit should not be
>>set too high as to allow applications to fill the paged pool with
>>registry data, setting the value to a realistic value will allow the
>>registry to grow conservatively and function properly, and it will give
>>you warnings when the registry size is growing at unusual rates,
>>something that may be completely normal but something that at other
>>times may need further investigation. More information can be found here:
>>
>>Understanding and configuring Registry Size Limit (RSL)
>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/124594
>>
>>Registry Size Limit Change Results in PagedPoolSize Change
>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140364/en-us
>>
>>While on the subject of Registry Size it should be noted that the System
>>hive is one important hive that should never be allowed to grow
>>unchecked, to succesfully boot Windows must be able to load this hive,
>>if it becomes too large Windows 2000 may not be able to load it during
>>the early booting stages when available memory is limited to 16MB. More
>>information about this can be found in these articles:
>>
>>The System hive memory limitation is improved in Windows Server 2003
>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302594
>>
>>Your computer does not start if the SYSTEM hive is too large
>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306038/en-us
>>
>>Error Message: Windows Could Not Start Because the Following File Is
>>Missing or Corrupt: \Winnt\System32\Config\Systemced
>>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=269075
>>
>>John
>>
>
> John, re: Article ID : 306038
>
> What is it referring to in step 2: "Type the number for the appropriate
> Windows installation"? Since I haven't done it yet, how would I know which
> number to type?

When you start the Recovery Console you will see something like this on
your screen:


Microsoft Windows(R) Recovery Console

The Recovery Console provides system repair and recovery functionality.
Type EXIT to exit the Recovery Console and restart the computer.

1: C:\WINNT

Which Windows Installation would you like to log on to
(To cancel, press ENTER)?


In the example above you would need to type in the number 1 and press
enter. If you have multiple NT type installations you will be shown
more than one option.



> As I type this, the time is 8:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time on 9/16/08.

Your post is shown as posted at 9:56AM 9/17/08, a full 13 hours into the
future. Which news server are you using? The problem may be at their
end. Try the Microsoft news server and see if things change, try:
msnews.microsoft.com

John




>
>
 
What about your time zone? Sounds like you might be set in an
Asia-Pacific zone.

John

DaffyD® wrote:

> This is strange. I'm looking at the date stamp on my posts via Outlook
> Express. I see that my response to John John was posted on 9/15/08 9:16 PM.
> File Properties confirms this date and time of post. I'm not sure why I'm
> being future posted in your newsgroup. Where can I find this group outside
> of OE? If I can log into the group online, I could see what you're seeing.
>
>
> "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com.oz> wrote in message
> news:O1xFwf8FJHA.4784@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>>"DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:eyuUSL7FJHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>The clock on the taskbar shows the correct time, time zone, and date. It
>>>also looks fine when I look at the date/time posted in OE (my news
>
> reader)
>
>>>so I'm not sure why you are seeing it differently.
>>>
>>
>>Your clock is definitely out of tune with the rest of the world. You're
>>posting perhaps 12 hours in the future, maybe some am/pm confusion?
>>
>>
>
>
>
 
This is strange. I'm looking at the date stamp on my posts via Outlook
Express. I see that my response to John John was posted on 9/15/08 9:16 PM.
File Properties confirms this date and time of post. I'm not sure why I'm
being future posted in your newsgroup. Where can I find this group outside
of OE? If I can log into the group online, I could see what you're seeing.


"Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com.oz> wrote in message
news:O1xFwf8FJHA.4784@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eyuUSL7FJHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > The clock on the taskbar shows the correct time, time zone, and date. It
> > also looks fine when I look at the date/time posted in OE (my news
reader)
> > so I'm not sure why you are seeing it differently.
> >
>
> Your clock is definitely out of tune with the rest of the world. You're
> posting perhaps 12 hours in the future, maybe some am/pm confusion?
>
>
 
I just noticed what you guys are talking about--my posts are showing in the
future for some reason. But again, my system clock is synchronized to my
watch and my watch is spot on the correct time. As I type this, it is 8:49
PM on 9/16/08.

It looks like the system has set the RSL itself to 55MB so I'm leaving it
alone.

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:uBtDa6%23FJHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> You are definitely posting in the future, just look at the replies to
> your posts, they are shown posted many hours before your posts.
>
> Setting your RSL to 50MB should be sufficient, if you get more warnings
> increase it in small increments of 1 or 2MB.
>
> John
>
> DaffyD® wrote:
> > The clock on the taskbar shows the correct time, time zone, and date. It
> > also looks fine when I look at the date/time posted in OE (my news
reader)
> > so I'm not sure why you are seeing it differently.
> >
> > Right now, the current registry size is 39 MB. Can you tell me what the
> > optimum maximum size should be? And thanks for the warning about
registry
> > cleaners. I haven't used any in about 8 years but it's good to be
reminded
> > not to use them. .
> >
> > "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> > news:ObvKg2yFJHA.5036@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >
> >>Please adjust your clock and or Timezone, you are posting in the future.
> >>
> >>It seems to me like the limit is set pretty high. Usually when you get
> >>a Registry Size Limit warning an increase of 1MB is sufficient. If you
> >>set this limit too high it may cause problems with the way the memory
> >>pools are allocated, it's a long complicated story, suffice to say that
> >>you should not go crazy with the Registry Size Limit. What is the
> >>current size of your registry?
> >>
> >>Please do not use registry cleaners on your Windows 2000 installation!
> >>These cleaners do more harm than good, you have worked long and hard to
> >>set your machine to your liking and to have it purr like a kitten, if
> >>you want to ruin your work and the stability of your installation then
> >>use a cleaner, if you don't want to wreck your installation keep
> >>cleaners away from your machine.
> >>
> >>You can "compact" the registry, that is not the same as cleaning it, you
> >>can safely use NTREGOPT to do this:
> >>http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/ To back up the
> >>registry you can use the Backup utility to create an Emergency Repair
> >>Disk (ERD) http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322755 .
> >>
> >>John
> >>
> >>DaffyD® wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>A couple of times now when I've run Spybot S&D I received that message
> >
> > that
> >
> >>>the registry size was too small. I know how to increase it and now
it's
> >
> > set
> >
> >>>at 100 MB. If that is too large, what is the typically recommended
size?
> >>>How would I go about cleaning up the registry so that I could reduce
its
> >>>size?
> >>
> >
> >
>
 
"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:OwwYkq$FJHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Galen wrote:
>
> > My reply is at the bottom of your sent message.
> >
> > In news:eyuUSL7FJHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
> > DaffyD® <daffyd@woohoo.com> typed:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Right now, the current registry size is 39 MB. Can you tell me what the
> >>optimum maximum size should be? And thanks for the warning about
registry
> >>cleaners. I haven't used any in about 8 years but it's good to be
reminded
> >>not to use them. .
> >
> >
> > In addition to the above advice from John John I would add that I have
yet
> > to see an increase in performance or stability from compacting the
registry
> > either. Do I clean my registry? Yes, by hand and ONLY when I absolutely
> > must. Orphaned reg entries have done no harm in all of these years. If I
do
> > let an application perform that for me that application is no longer
> > available in the format it once was so I've not cleaned a registry
since.
> >
> > To give my OPINION about your question. No more than 2 MB bigger than is
> > required. Setting it too large can make for issues.
>
> I think I should clarify that having the limit itself set to a large
> value usually won't affect anything as such, the system won't use the
> space unless it needs it. On the other hand, the limit should not be
> set too high as to allow applications to fill the paged pool with
> registry data, setting the value to a realistic value will allow the
> registry to grow conservatively and function properly, and it will give
> you warnings when the registry size is growing at unusual rates,
> something that may be completely normal but something that at other
> times may need further investigation. More information can be found here:
>
> Understanding and configuring Registry Size Limit (RSL)
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/124594
>
> Registry Size Limit Change Results in PagedPoolSize Change
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140364/en-us
>
> While on the subject of Registry Size it should be noted that the System
> hive is one important hive that should never be allowed to grow
> unchecked, to succesfully boot Windows must be able to load this hive,
> if it becomes too large Windows 2000 may not be able to load it during
> the early booting stages when available memory is limited to 16MB. More
> information about this can be found in these articles:
>
> The System hive memory limitation is improved in Windows Server 2003
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302594
>
> Your computer does not start if the SYSTEM hive is too large
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306038/en-us
>
> Error Message: Windows Could Not Start Because the Following File Is
> Missing or Corrupt: \Winnt\System32\Config\Systemced
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=269075
>
> John
>
John, re: Article ID : 306038

What is it referring to in step 2: "Type the number for the appropriate
Windows installation"? Since I haven't done it yet, how would I know which
number to type?

As I type this, the time is 8:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time on 9/16/08.
 
I'm posting on both Microsoft servers, news.microsoft.com and
msnews.microsoft.com depending on which of my computers I'm using to
post. The BIOS doesn't have anything to do with this as such, the clock
and date set in the BIOS are used by the operating system, when you
adjust your date/time in the operating system the operating system also
updates the BIOS date/time to reflect the changes, you can go in your
BIOS and verify the settings. There definitely is something screwy down
at your end, this last post of yours is shown posted at 7:41AM 18/09/08.

This thread is archived at:
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...7/58c61d361ef1486c?lnk=st&q=#58c61d361ef1486c

Something might have messed about the Time Zone settings in the
registry? Export and post the contents of the following keys:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\TimeZoneInformation

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Time
Zones\Pacific Standard Time

or verify your values against these:


[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\TimeZoneInformation]
"Bias"=dword:000001e0
"StandardName"="Pacific Standard Time"
"StandardBias"=dword:00000000
"StandardStart"=hex:00,00,0b,00,01,00,02,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00
"DaylightName"="Pacific Daylight Time"
"DaylightBias"=dword:ffffffc4
"DaylightStart"=hex:00,00,03,00,02,00,02,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00
"ActiveTimeBias"=dword:000001a4


[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Time
Zones\Pacific Standard Time]
"Display"="(GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Tijuana"
"Dlt"="Pacific Daylight Time"
"Std"="Pacific Standard Time"
"MapID"="32,33"
"Index"=dword:00000004
"TZI"=hex:e0,01,00,00,00,00,00,00,c4,ff,ff,ff,00,00,0b,00,00,00,01,00,02,00,00,\
00,00,00,00,00,00,00,03,00,00,00,02,00,02,00,00,00,00,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Time
Zones\Pacific Standard Time\Dynamic DST]
"2006"=hex:e0,01,00,00,00,00,00,00,c4,ff,ff,ff,00,00,0a,00,00,00,05,00,02,00,\
00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,04,00,00,00,01,00,02,00,00,00,00,00,00,00
"2007"=hex:e0,01,00,00,00,00,00,00,c4,ff,ff,ff,00,00,0b,00,00,00,01,00,02,00,\
00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,03,00,00,00,02,00,02,00,00,00,00,00,00,00
"FirstEntry"=dword:000007d6
"LastEntry"=dword:000007d7

John

DaffyD® wrote:

> Per Date/Time Properties, I'm in the Pacific Time Zone. Does the BIOS play
> any part in this?
> What's funny, from what I see in Outlook Express, I'm posting at the current
> time but your responses are about an hour earlier than mine. Where would I
> find your newsgroup outside of OE? Are you in Google Groups or something
> like that?
>
> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:e9Sm$oLGJHA.4176@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>>What about your time zone? Sounds like you might be set in an
>>Asia-Pacific zone.
>>
>>John
>>
>>DaffyD® wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is strange. I'm looking at the date stamp on my posts via Outlook
>>>Express. I see that my response to John John was posted on 9/15/08 9:16
>
> PM.
>
>>>File Properties confirms this date and time of post. I'm not sure why
>
> I'm
>
>>>being future posted in your newsgroup. Where can I find this group
>
> outside
>
>>>of OE? If I can log into the group online, I could see what you're
>
> seeing.
>
>>>
>>>"Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com.oz> wrote in message
>>>news:O1xFwf8FJHA.4784@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:eyuUSL7FJHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The clock on the taskbar shows the correct time, time zone, and date.
>
> It
>
>>>>>also looks fine when I look at the date/time posted in OE (my news
>>>
>>>reader)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>so I'm not sure why you are seeing it differently.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your clock is definitely out of tune with the rest of the world. You're
>>>>posting perhaps 12 hours in the future, maybe some am/pm confusion?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
 
Per Date/Time Properties, I'm in the Pacific Time Zone. Does the BIOS play
any part in this?
What's funny, from what I see in Outlook Express, I'm posting at the current
time but your responses are about an hour earlier than mine. Where would I
find your newsgroup outside of OE? Are you in Google Groups or something
like that?

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:e9Sm$oLGJHA.4176@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> What about your time zone? Sounds like you might be set in an
> Asia-Pacific zone.
>
> John
>
> DaffyD® wrote:
>
> > This is strange. I'm looking at the date stamp on my posts via Outlook
> > Express. I see that my response to John John was posted on 9/15/08 9:16
PM.
> > File Properties confirms this date and time of post. I'm not sure why
I'm
> > being future posted in your newsgroup. Where can I find this group
outside
> > of OE? If I can log into the group online, I could see what you're
seeing.
> >
> >
> > "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com.oz> wrote in message
> > news:O1xFwf8FJHA.4784@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >
> >>"DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:eyuUSL7FJHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >>
> >>>The clock on the taskbar shows the correct time, time zone, and date.
It
> >>>also looks fine when I look at the date/time posted in OE (my news
> >
> > reader)
> >
> >>>so I'm not sure why you are seeing it differently.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Your clock is definitely out of tune with the rest of the world. You're
> >>posting perhaps 12 hours in the future, maybe some am/pm confusion?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
 
"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:OZd3wiLGJHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> DaffyD® wrote:
>
> > "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> > news:OwwYkq$FJHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >
> >>Galen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>My reply is at the bottom of your sent message.
> >>>
> >>>In news:eyuUSL7FJHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
> >>>DaffyD® <daffyd@woohoo.com> typed:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Right now, the current registry size is 39 MB. Can you tell me what
the
> >>>>optimum maximum size should be? And thanks for the warning about
> >
> > registry
> >
> >>>>cleaners. I haven't used any in about 8 years but it's good to be
> >
> > reminded
> >
> >>>>not to use them. .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In addition to the above advice from John John I would add that I have
> >
> > yet
> >
> >>>to see an increase in performance or stability from compacting the
> >
> > registry
> >
> >>>either. Do I clean my registry? Yes, by hand and ONLY when I absolutely
> >>>must. Orphaned reg entries have done no harm in all of these years. If
I
> >
> > do
> >
> >>>let an application perform that for me that application is no longer
> >>>available in the format it once was so I've not cleaned a registry
> >
> > since.
> >
> >>>To give my OPINION about your question. No more than 2 MB bigger than
is
> >>>required. Setting it too large can make for issues.
> >>
> >>I think I should clarify that having the limit itself set to a large
> >>value usually won't affect anything as such, the system won't use the
> >>space unless it needs it. On the other hand, the limit should not be
> >>set too high as to allow applications to fill the paged pool with
> >>registry data, setting the value to a realistic value will allow the
> >>registry to grow conservatively and function properly, and it will give
> >>you warnings when the registry size is growing at unusual rates,
> >>something that may be completely normal but something that at other
> >>times may need further investigation. More information can be found
here:
> >>
> >>Understanding and configuring Registry Size Limit (RSL)
> >>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/124594
> >>
> >>Registry Size Limit Change Results in PagedPoolSize Change
> >>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140364/en-us
> >>
> >>While on the subject of Registry Size it should be noted that the System
> >>hive is one important hive that should never be allowed to grow
> >>unchecked, to succesfully boot Windows must be able to load this hive,
> >>if it becomes too large Windows 2000 may not be able to load it during
> >>the early booting stages when available memory is limited to 16MB. More
> >>information about this can be found in these articles:
> >>
> >>The System hive memory limitation is improved in Windows Server 2003
> >>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302594
> >>
> >>Your computer does not start if the SYSTEM hive is too large
> >>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306038/en-us
> >>
> >>Error Message: Windows Could Not Start Because the Following File Is
> >>Missing or Corrupt: \Winnt\System32\Config\Systemced
> >>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=269075
> >>
> >>John
> >>
> >
> > John, re: Article ID : 306038
> >
> > What is it referring to in step 2: "Type the number for the appropriate
> > Windows installation"? Since I haven't done it yet, how would I know
which
> > number to type?
>
> When you start the Recovery Console you will see something like this on
> your screen:
>
>
> Microsoft Windows(R) Recovery Console
>
> The Recovery Console provides system repair and recovery functionality.
> Type EXIT to exit the Recovery Console and restart the computer.
>
> 1: C:\WINNT
>
> Which Windows Installation would you like to log on to
> (To cancel, press ENTER)?
>
>
> In the example above you would need to type in the number 1 and press
> enter. If you have multiple NT type installations you will be shown
> more than one option.
>
>
>
> > As I type this, the time is 8:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time on 9/16/08.
>
> Your post is shown as posted at 9:56AM 9/17/08, a full 13 hours into the
> future. Which news server are you using? The problem may be at their
> end. Try the Microsoft news server and see if things change, try:
> msnews.microsoft.com
>
> John
>
>I've now signed onto the msnews.microsoft.com server. Is the time/date
still showing in the future?
>
>
> >
> >
>
 
This is what is so weird--I'm using the MS news server via Outlook Express.
I've never had this time problem before. Whatever is happening, it's beyond
my control.


"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:OZd3wiLGJHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> DaffyD® wrote:
>
> > "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> > news:OwwYkq$FJHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >
> >>Galen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>My reply is at the bottom of your sent message.
> >>>
> >>>In news:eyuUSL7FJHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
> >>>DaffyD® <daffyd@woohoo.com> typed:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Right now, the current registry size is 39 MB. Can you tell me what
the
> >>>>optimum maximum size should be? And thanks for the warning about
> >
> > registry
> >
> >>>>cleaners. I haven't used any in about 8 years but it's good to be
> >
> > reminded
> >
> >>>>not to use them. .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In addition to the above advice from John John I would add that I have
> >
> > yet
> >
> >>>to see an increase in performance or stability from compacting the
> >
> > registry
> >
> >>>either. Do I clean my registry? Yes, by hand and ONLY when I absolutely
> >>>must. Orphaned reg entries have done no harm in all of these years. If
I
> >
> > do
> >
> >>>let an application perform that for me that application is no longer
> >>>available in the format it once was so I've not cleaned a registry
> >
> > since.
> >
> >>>To give my OPINION about your question. No more than 2 MB bigger than
is
> >>>required. Setting it too large can make for issues.
> >>
> >>I think I should clarify that having the limit itself set to a large
> >>value usually won't affect anything as such, the system won't use the
> >>space unless it needs it. On the other hand, the limit should not be
> >>set too high as to allow applications to fill the paged pool with
> >>registry data, setting the value to a realistic value will allow the
> >>registry to grow conservatively and function properly, and it will give
> >>you warnings when the registry size is growing at unusual rates,
> >>something that may be completely normal but something that at other
> >>times may need further investigation. More information can be found
here:
> >>
> >>Understanding and configuring Registry Size Limit (RSL)
> >>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/124594
> >>
> >>Registry Size Limit Change Results in PagedPoolSize Change
> >>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140364/en-us
> >>
> >>While on the subject of Registry Size it should be noted that the System
> >>hive is one important hive that should never be allowed to grow
> >>unchecked, to succesfully boot Windows must be able to load this hive,
> >>if it becomes too large Windows 2000 may not be able to load it during
> >>the early booting stages when available memory is limited to 16MB. More
> >>information about this can be found in these articles:
> >>
> >>The System hive memory limitation is improved in Windows Server 2003
> >>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302594
> >>
> >>Your computer does not start if the SYSTEM hive is too large
> >>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306038/en-us
> >>
> >>Error Message: Windows Could Not Start Because the Following File Is
> >>Missing or Corrupt: \Winnt\System32\Config\Systemced
> >>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=269075
> >>
> >>John
> >>
> >
> > John, re: Article ID : 306038
> >
> > What is it referring to in step 2: "Type the number for the appropriate
> > Windows installation"? Since I haven't done it yet, how would I know
which
> > number to type?
>
> When you start the Recovery Console you will see something like this on
> your screen:
>
>
> Microsoft Windows(R) Recovery Console
>
> The Recovery Console provides system repair and recovery functionality.
> Type EXIT to exit the Recovery Console and restart the computer.
>
> 1: C:\WINNT
>
> Which Windows Installation would you like to log on to
> (To cancel, press ENTER)?
>
>
> In the example above you would need to type in the number 1 and press
> enter. If you have multiple NT type installations you will be shown
> more than one option.
>
>
>
> > As I type this, the time is 8:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time on 9/16/08.
>
> Your post is shown as posted at 9:56AM 9/17/08, a full 13 hours into the
> future. Which news server are you using? The problem may be at their
> end. Try the Microsoft news server and see if things change, try:
> msnews.microsoft.com
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
 
Back
Top