RE: Direct memory access controller driver problem ?
- From: jags <jags@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 03:49:02 -0700
Thanks for your reply, but it appears you didn't quite read all my post ... I
DO have a standalone video card installed, the graphics are NOT run 'on
board'. My graphics card is configured for 64Mb RAM - SELF CONTAINED - PLUS
the 512 Mb system RAM installed. My question was mainly revolving around why
my system tells me two distinctly different things - that being, on the one
hand, it says there is NO driver installed for the DMA controller, yet it
ALSO says that there IS a "current" driver, as described in my post. I am
concerned that there appears to be a mere 8Mb of RAM 'running' the machine,
as there is this "lost" 8Mb that I cannot account for ?! According to the
system properties window, I only have 504Mb installed RAM - but there are 2 x
256 Mb chips = 512Mb - so where is the other 8Mb going ?? I am reasonably
convinced that the machine, for some reason I cannot fathom, is using THAT
8Mb to run the graphics, yet everything I can see points to the graphics card
being active, and set at 64Mb ? It just is NOT running that way ... This
machine originally had 32Mb ON BOARD Intel graphics, but that IS disabled -
both via BIOS and via device manager - yet there's no way the quality I have
now comes from a dedicated 64Mb graphics card - even though it assures me it
IS fully functional and the other Intel chip IS disabled.
With regard to the DMA controller, I honestly do not know anything about it,
so I am therefore presuming that it must be a reasonably critical device and
thus needs to work correctly, but how CAN it be working - at all - if it has
no driver ? Even though it says it DOES elsewhere ! Surely no matter WHAT
graphics card(s) I have, if it/they cannot access the available memory, then
surely they cannot operate correctly - and I am presuming that this is the
FUNCTION of the DMA controller - to let the right thing have the right memory
as and when it wants it ?! Am I wrong in that assumption ? Obviously, I'm no
expert, but surely if the DMA controller is not permitting whichever graphics
card is current to HAVE access to the memory it requires, then there are
going to be these nasty problems, no ? I am utterly confused now ... :)
Even I realise that what I've just said makes little sense - because if the
graphics card has its OWN RAM, then why would it need access to the SYSTEM
RAM ?!! So what IS going on here then ? Thanks again for your help, but
unfortunately I'm not sure what to do with your suggestions, they don't seem
appropriate to what problem I seem to have :( Sorry.
"Andrew E." wrote:
On board video is usually below average standards,sometimes way below as.
it uses resources & the memory is minimal...However,you can add some system
memory thru the BIOS,it would be in advanced chipset
configuration...Also,youre
board is probably made up of intel hardware,yes microsoft has drivers (now
installed),but thier out of date...If intel is the mfg,go to
intel.com/downloads,1st
install the chipset installation utility,then the graphics driver,if the
chipset is 850
or lower,install the application accelerator v2.3 You'll see big
diffrence,add/on
graphics card would help....
"jags" wrote:
I am having problems with my system, it is running slow and its graphic
reproduction is AWFUL ... Trying to investigate, I came across the following,
I'd appreciate some help figuring out what this means, and what effect, if
any, this might be having toward my current problem ...
According to device manager, I have no driver installed for the DMA
controller, yet ALSO according to d.m., it shows the following is installed
under the driver tag - Driver date 01/07/01 Microsoft version 5.1.2600.0 ? I
have tried to re-instal and/or update the driver, but the wizard keeps
returning with the same thing - cannot continue, could not find a driver
newer than one already installed ?? ALREADY installed ?! There ISN'T one, or
is there ??? There is surely SOME sort of conflict here, yet again the dev.
man. says NO conflicts and device is 'working normally' ? Huh ?? Could this
be the cause of my machines 'slow down' and terrible graphic reproduction (by
this I mean, although I have a P3 1.7Gb processor, it runs SLOWER than my old
486 did ... and as for trying to run more than one program at the same time -
impossible !! Pages just refuse to render, or render incomplete, or off
screen, or just as a grey box ???) I am at a loss to know what to do or try
next, there does not seem to be any reason for this fault (if that's what it
is) and any new programs installed recently all run fine - individually that
is ... Could this be something software driven, ie a clash between Windows
and another program trying to do the same thing at the same time ? I'm
grasping at straws here, cos I got NO ideas no more !! Help me please, I'm
getting desprate .... FYI, system details : P3 1.7Gb 512RAM (although for
some reason, this shows as only 504Mb using system details in control panel ?
- in fact, if I didn't know better, I'd say this machine is starving for RAM
- maybe the "lost" 8Mb is what's REALLY running the thing ??? ) 64Mb G4000
standalone graphics card, Win XP SP2 updated to today's specs. Thanks for
your help.
- Prev by Date: Re: Administrative Tools Services
- Next by Date: question about accessing hidden share c$
- Previous by thread: Re: Administrative Tools Services
- Next by thread: question about accessing hidden share c$
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
