essvr.exe shuts down at desktop. What is essvr.exe?

I just bought a Gigabyte 880GM-UD2H mobo. It was a CPU mobo combo deal
(CPU - DualCore AMD Athlon II X2 255, 3100 MHz (15.5 x 200) 3.1GIG). I
keep getting this error message at desktop "essvr.exe has encountered
a problem and needs to shut down." What is essvr.exe? Is it essential
to have running or can I ignore it? TIA

Also I have another question. I am running Windows XP PRO and have 2x
2GB sticks of ram (280pin). Widows only reports 2,75GB RAM. The place
where I got it they say that because of XP and I would need to buy
Windows 7. Please comment on the ladder paragraph TIA!

Bob Smith wrote:
I just bought a Gigabyte 880GM-UD2H mobo. It was a CPU mobo combo deal
(CPU - DualCore AMD Athlon II X2 255, 3100 MHz (15.5 x 200) 3.1GIG). I
keep getting this error message at desktop "essvr.exe has encountered
a problem and needs to shut down." What is essvr.exe? Is it essential
to have running or can I ignore it? TIA

Also I have another question. I am running Windows XP PRO and have 2x
2GB sticks of ram (280pin). Widows only reports 2,75GB RAM. The place
where I got it they say that because of XP and I would need to buy
Windows 7. Please comment on the ladder paragraph TIA!

Five minutes with google, 310 million hits including this one:
http://www.gigabyte.com/press-center...e.aspx?nid=659

The file may be corrupted. Try reinstalling it or get the
upgraded version. If that does not work, then disable its startup.

Theoretically 2^32=4,294,967,296, however an o/s will use some
ram for itself and startup programs.
My UDR3 has 6 gig but XP3-32 only lets me use 3.5.
Some background programs on your machine are eating a lot of ram.
My machine uses 0.5 G of ram. Your machine uses 1.25 G.
IMO, that is terrible. If you want to utilize more than about 3.8 G,
then you will need a 64 bit o/s.

Bob Smith wrote:
I just bought a Gigabyte 880GM-UD2H mobo. It was a CPU mobo combo deal
(CPU - DualCore AMD Athlon II X2 255, 3100 MHz (15.5 x 200) 3.1GIG). I
keep getting this error message at desktop "essvr.exe has encountered
a problem and needs to shut down." What is essvr.exe? Is it essential
to have running or can I ignore it? TIA

Also I have another question. I am running Windows XP PRO and have 2x
2GB sticks of ram (280pin). Widows only reports 2,75GB RAM. The place
where I got it they say that because of XP and I would need to buy
Windows 7. Please comment on the ladder paragraph TIA!

That executable came from your Gigabyte motherboard CD, with the drivers on it.
A typical usage, for the company writing a program like that, is to
turn off phases of Vcore, when they're not needed, in real time.
I never bother to install stuff like that.

C:\Program Files\GigabyteEasySaver\ESSVR.EXE Easy Energy Saver

It also wouldn't hurt, to crack open the motherboard manual. You can get
a PDF version, if you want to read it on-screen (download from Gigabyte,
or have a look on the motherboard CD, to see if a copy is there - I just
download them, because I know where to find them). Or use any manual that
comes in the motherboard box. In there, may be a section describing
"Easy Energy Saver", what features it has, and so on. That'll give
you some idea, whether it is worth looking for an updated version on
the Gigabyte site.

*******

If you have WinXP Pro 32 bit and 4GB of physical memory, there are some
restrictions on the address space with that OS.

The OS works with 4GB of physical addresses. Those start at zero and work up.
Some amount of space is reserved for hardware busses and the devices on them.
A big consumer of such space, is a video card. Based on your numbers, a guess
on my part would be, "you are using a 1GB video card". The 1GB of memory on the
video card, needs to be addressable by hardware. That space is below the 4GB
mark. 4GB minus 1GB leaves 3GB of addresses, so not enough addresses to be
able to use all your physical RAM. Your computer will also have a PCI bus segment,
and a minimum allocation (whether it is needed or not) is 256MB. Similar experiences
to yours (getting 2.75GB), result from running two 512MB video cards in
SLI or Crossfire.

The computer maps virtual addresses to physical addresses. The programs on your
computer, run in the virtual address space. A "mapper" in one of the chips
in your computer, translates virtual addresses to physical addresses. Your
computer likely has a page file on C:. The addition of page_file_size plus
available_physical_ram, sets the maximum amount of virtual addresses that
can be used. If you used all of that, some programs would be paged out onto
disk, and would be as slow as molasses coming back when needed. It isn't
practical to exhaust all virtual memory, because the part that is backed
with page file at the moment, is slow to move back into main memory. And
thus, the physical memory that is free, is the best determinant of what
you can use. The page file is only an asset, if it is super fast (I set
one up that delivered ~4GB/sec and then it feels seamless - see the picture
to see what I was using for my pagefile :-) ).

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8...am2gbabove.gif

For most practical purposes, you'll have about 3GB to work with, when using
a 32 bit OS and 4GB or more of memory. If you had lots of video cards installed,
the reported total physical RAM would drop and drop. If instead, you pulled out
that 1GB video card, and used a PCI card with 32MB on it (circa 2002), Windows
may report 3.75GB free. But such a video card would suck, even for simple web
surfing. So people don't do stuff like that. Instead, they live with less memory
available.

*******

WinXP is available in 32 bit and 64 bit editions. The 64 bit edition would
not be recommended, due to 64 bit driver quality issues, and general flakiness.
The people who bought the 64 bit edition, didn't seem to be overly happy with it.

If you had bought the 64 bit edition, it allows more physical memory to be used,
and doesn't have an artificial limit like the 32 bit versions do. (It takes
a while to properly digest this page - it took me several reads to understand
it.)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...78(VS.85).aspx

It is possible for an OS, to use PAE, which is an addressing extension. At one
time, WinXP made good use of PAE, but the latest service packs prevent you from
using PAE as it was intended. PAE is enabled by default in the latest service
packs, but not for your benefit. It is enabled, to support features such as
NX or "No Execute". That is a security feature, intended to stop certain
kinds of malware attacks.

So what would Windows 7 buy you ? It's another Windows OS. It is available in
32 bit edition and 64 bit edition. Like in the WinXP situation, the 64 bit
edition allows you to use more physical memory. It's pretty well the same
as the situation with WinXP, except the 64 bit version of Windows 7 runs better.
The 32 bit version would still have the "3GB free" kind of issue you're seeing.

You don't "need to buy Windows 7". At least, not yet. Some day, Microsoft
will be making games to be no longer compatible with WinXP, just like they
did with Win2K. By modifying DirectX, they can gradually infiltrate the
gaming system, and break games so you have to use hacks to get them to run.
(That's what I was doing with Win2K, until I finally surrendered and bought
a copy of WinXP.) I fully expect Microsoft will play that game at some future
date. Other than that, with Windows 7, you're getting "support" from Microsoft
for some period of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions

The list here may be long, but it "ain't all roses". The new start
menu is crap. Libraries are crap. Many of the "change for change sake"
features are crap. A few things are good, things you'd expect from an
OS (better multitasking when using a pathetic CPU, support for SSD,
support for newly created hardware technologies and so on). I find
a lot of the GUI related features, to just be mistakes. I'm still
more efficient with WinXP. Windows 7 also seems to bash on the disk
more, at least the light on my laptop seems to be on quite a lot.
Windows 7 is always "busy optimizing things" :-) You can find a
piece of software, that puts the start menu back the way it was,
so there is hope on that front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7

And to be honest with you, if you did manage to gain access to that
other bit of leftover RAM, it isn't going to help that much. But to
explain why, would only make this post even longer.

Paul