Windows 2000/NT forum: SPOOLSV.EXE Application Error

Thanks for the solution I have bin looking for 2 days too fix this problem
best regards from Iceland

This problem caused me a night or 2. The solution is being tested right now (so far no errors).

QUESTION: Can somebody explain how this error occurs? Where does it occur (RAM, hdd, processor)? The error-description makes me believe that it has to do with a memory-module, that I have a faulty module, but the testprogram Memtest gave no errors.

Thanks in advance (and thanks for this solution because the error didn't come back so far.

Gerrit.

I had a similar problem this last week.
The particualar instruction was at 0x00d72904 referencing 0x00e474000, which could not be read.
The spooler died on system startup.
I cleared the items from the registry, per ms Q312052
/ KB312052.
I was then able to uninstall the printer driver,
in this case for a HP2600n.
I was able to install (& use) drivers for several other printers.
When I installed (from scratch, from the original HP CD) the printer driver for the HP2600n, and tried to print, the spooler died at the same place again.
Thus, I don't think it is a damaged driver.
I think it is something in the spooler itself which is incorrect.
By-the-way, should not there be a top-level exception handler in a daemon / background process to prevent the spooler from dying?
Also, at this point, there were *no* files in the print spool queue, and no files at all in the spooler directory, and spoolsv.exe was still faulting.

It's over at http://reviews.cnet.com/5204-6142-0.html?forumID=5&start=0

One comment though. With a dual Xeon that's one pricey machine. Did you call it in?

Bob

Any discussion would be off topic but it's fairly known that the quality of drivers is suspect. The cure is to call it in.

-> There are a few that think drivers and such are bug free but it only takes a few incidents like this for that notion to go away.

Bob

Your simple fix for my spoolsv.exe error was a life saver today. Bravo - and thanks to CNET for this forum.

otherwise your post gets lost when you hijack someone else's discussion, especially since the topic is not the same, and the discussion is some 5 years old.

Mark