install w7 on 16gb of ram?

[Seth]

You've gotten a number of replies focusing on the RAM you added. But
almost certainly the real issue is the change in motherboards. Such a
change normally requires that you do a clean reinstallation of
Windows.

See I read his message to say that he tried that too...

" in both cases, suggesting a restart of the installation & a repair. That
doesn't work either."

 

[Tinker Tanker]

I just upgraded my mobo to from asus A8N-E to an Crosshair-4 and ram
from 4gb to 16gb. Now the previously installed w7 will no longer boot
and I can't reinstall it either, getting similar hardware problem
messages in both cases, suggesting a restart of the installation & a
repair. That doesn't work either.

Thanks everyone for all the input.

Forgot to mention the CPU, it's a Phenom-II X6 1075T

I've managed to install the 32-bit version of w7. Performance and
Information Tool says the box is "64-bit capable".

The problem does not appear to be a motherboard issue. Linux works fine
32 bit or 64.

All attempts with the 64 bit version end up with some form of the
following (have tried two different 64-bit install DVD's).

Status #'s like 0xc000225 and 0xc000000e

"Windows failed to start. A recent hardware or software change might be
the cause. To fix the problem ...start an install and then select repair."

On such repair attempts:

"This version of Syst. Rcovery is not compatible with the version of
Windows you are trying to repair."

I spent the day pissing around with this thing and now that I have a
running version (and am tired) I'm really tempted to just leave it "as
is". I might yet try to install one more time tomorrow with some RAM
pulled just to see if that could be the cause.

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, again, Tinker.

On such repair attempts:

"This version of Syst. Rcovery is not compatible with the version of
Windows you are trying to repair."

Sounds to me like you are trying to mix'n'match 32-bit and 64-bit - and that
just cannot work. :^{

Forgot to mention the CPU, it's a Phenom-II X6 1075T

I've managed to install the 32-bit version of w7. Performance and
Information Tool says the box is "64-bit capable".

That computer is certainly capable of 64-bit installation! But you've
installed 32-bit Windows on it. So, for now, it is a 32-bit Windows 7
computer. If you want it to run 64-bit Windows, you'll have to BOOT FROM
the 64-bit Windows 7 DVD and install Windows 7 x64 - from scratch. The
retail Windows 7 Ultimate package includes TWO DVDs, one 32-bit and one
64-bit, and a single Product Key. You are licensed to install EITHER 32-bit
or 64-bit, but not both. If you've installed 32-bit and want to switch to
64-bit, you must start from scratch. (If your Win7 was originally an OEM
installation, you may be limited to the original "bitness", but I'm not sure
of the legal technicalities of the OEM license.)

Because of differences down deep in the hardware, if you boot into 32-bit
Windows, you cannot repair it using a 64-bit DVD - and vice versa.

Since you told us earlier that you are running 32-bit Windows 7, you must
either:
1. Be sure you have the 32-bit DVD and are using that to repair 32-bit
Windows 7.

Or,

2. Insert the 64-bit DVD, set your BIOS to boot from the DVD drive, and
reboot. This will start up in the 64-bit environment, from which you can
install 64-bit Windows 7. Choose a Custom Install and let Setup delete your
32-bit Win7 and install 64-bit Win7 in its place.

That is a somewhat drastic move, of course, because you will be wiping out
32-bit Win7! So be sure that ALL your data is securely backed up. And be
sure that you have installation media for all your applications, because ALL
of them will need to be re-installed once 64-bit Win7 is installed and
running. The WET (Windows Easy Transfer tool) can help a lot with this
transition; run it before you delete the 32-bit Windows and again after you
install 64-bit. With very rare exceptions. all your 32-bit apps will
install and run just fine in Win7 x64, and you probably don't have any
64-bit apps because very few are available nowadays.

Most important point: You CANNOT repair 32-bit Windows with the 64-bit DVD!

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3508.1109) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1


"Tinker Tanker" wrote in message

I just upgraded my mobo to from asus A8N-E to an Crosshair-4 and ram
from 4gb to 16gb. Now the previously installed w7 will no longer boot
and I can't reinstall it either, getting similar hardware problem
messages in both cases, suggesting a restart of the installation & a
repair. That doesn't work either.

Thanks everyone for all the input.

Forgot to mention the CPU, it's a Phenom-II X6 1075T

I've managed to install the 32-bit version of w7. Performance and
Information Tool says the box is "64-bit capable".

The problem does not appear to be a motherboard issue. Linux works fine
32 bit or 64.

All attempts with the 64 bit version end up with some form of the
following (have tried two different 64-bit install DVD's).

Status #'s like 0xc000225 and 0xc000000e

"Windows failed to start. A recent hardware or software change might be
the cause. To fix the problem ...start an install and then select repair."

On such repair attempts:

"This version of Syst. Rcovery is not compatible with the version of
Windows you are trying to repair."

I spent the day pissing around with this thing and now that I have a
running version (and am tired) I'm really tempted to just leave it "as
is". I might yet try to install one more time tomorrow with some RAM
pulled just to see if that could be the cause.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

The original post says:

"and I can't reinstall it either"

and that should have covered hardware differences. If the original
post only contained details of "moving" a disk from one set of
hardware to another, perhaps the responses would have been different.
It sounded like the OP had done a little more work than that.

Paul

Agreed. That's what stopped me from taliking about drivers, since I
inferred from TT's remarks[1] that installing from the DVD wouldn't
work.

[1] He said he "can't reinstall it either". Since he couldn't boot from
the hard drive, he must have tried the optical disk.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Thanks everyone for all the input.

Forgot to mention the CPU, it's a Phenom-II X6 1075T

I've managed to install the 32-bit version of w7. Performance and Information
Tool says the box is "64-bit capable".

The problem does not appear to be a motherboard issue. Linux works fine 32
bit or 64.

All attempts with the 64 bit version end up with some form of the following
(have tried two different 64-bit install DVD's).

Status #'s like 0xc000225 and 0xc000000e

"Windows failed to start. A recent hardware or software change might be the
cause. To fix the problem ...start an install and then select repair."

On such repair attempts:

"This version of Syst. Rcovery is not compatible with the version of Windows
you are trying to repair."

I spent the day pissing around with this thing and now that I have a running
version (and am tired) I'm really tempted to just leave it "as is". I might
yet try to install one more time tomorrow with some RAM pulled just to see if
that could be the cause.

OK. Don't activate Windows yet

And perhaps you should try removing the hard drive and installing a
second one for the experiment, just to save some hair-pulling.

 

[Paul]

Thanks everyone for all the input.

Forgot to mention the CPU, it's a Phenom-II X6 1075T

I've managed to install the 32-bit version of w7. Performance and
Information Tool says the box is "64-bit capable".

The problem does not appear to be a motherboard issue. Linux works fine
32 bit or 64.

All attempts with the 64 bit version end up with some form of the
following (have tried two different 64-bit install DVD's).

Status #'s like 0xc000225 and 0xc000000e

"Windows failed to start. A recent hardware or software change might be
the cause. To fix the problem ...start an install and then select repair."

On such repair attempts:

"This version of Syst. Rcovery is not compatible with the version of
Windows you are trying to repair."

I spent the day pissing around with this thing and now that I have a
running version (and am tired) I'm really tempted to just leave it "as
is". I might yet try to install one more time tomorrow with some RAM
pulled just to see if that could be the cause.

There is an example of a 0xC0000225 here (involves winload.exe) . This
one looks like some kind of issue with the elements of the bootup process.

http://www.vmadmin.co.uk/microsoft/43-winserver2008/189-winsvr08bootmgrerror

When you say "Linux works fine 32 bit or 64", are you referring to using
a LiveCD version, or are you referring to having Linux already installed
on the same disk ? Linux has its own boot manager (GRUB or GRUB2), as does Windows.
The last one to install, will mess up how the other one works, and will attempt
to take control. Knowing that is going to happen, is why a common piece
of advice with Windows, is to install an older version of a Windows OS,
before installing a newer one, as the newer one knows how to safely take
control of the older one. The boot manager screen of the latest OS,
then contains entries for both OSes as boot options.

It's possible, if you're attempting to multi-boot (have two OSes installed
on the same disk), that the issues you're seeing on reboot, have to do with
the multi-boot part.

On a second web page (not the same site as the above), I see...

"you get the error "0xc000000e Missing or corrupt winload.exe"

Cause of the Problem:

This particular error is caused by missing or damaged information
in the master boot record."

The Master Boot Record is in sector 0. Typically, an OS installer, will
write its own stuff in there. When I installed Linux on my computer on one
hard drive, the install CD managed to erase and overwrite sector 0 on
another of my disks (the one with WinXP on it). Luckily, as soon as
the computer wouldn't boot, I knew what messed it up. A little "fixmbr"
magic from the WinXP repair console and it was OK again. (Windows 7
uses a different command for that purpose, but there are similarities.)

Windows 7 also has two ways it can install. It can install two primary
partitions, one perhaps 100MB in size (tiny) and the main C: partition
next to it. The boot stuff is in the tiny partition. I've also seen
a Linux install do this (Gentoo works that way). You can also force
Windows 7 to install all of that stuff into the one partition (more
like a traditional install), and at least if it's put into one
partition, it saves precious Primary partitions, so you have
more room for multi-booting. I can't say right off hand, where
the wisdom is, of wasting a Primary partition. I can say in the
Gentoo case, when I installed both 32 bit Gentoo and 64 bit Gentoo
on the same hard drive, it took me the better part of a full day
to get it running right.

So if you're installing multiple OSes, perhaps you could explain
what's on the disk already.

The MBR Sector is 512 bytes. There is a flag pattern at the
end, something like 0xAA55 or 0x55AA. When an installer CD/DVD sees
the flag value, it knows another OS has loaded the MBR with something.
If you're having troubles, and know for a fact that only one OS
will be installed and be present on the disk, then erasing the MBR is
a good thing to do, before beginning the install (that simple operation,
*wipes out* all partitions! - it is the fastest way to erase a disk).
When the installer CD sees no 0xAA55 at the end of the first sector,
it will then blow away the MBR. I've had problems in the past,
installing Windows on a disk that previously had Linux on it,
and erasing the MBR was all it needed. One way to do that, taking
only seconds, is to boot a Linux LiveCD, and use the "dd" command
like this (sudo makes you root so the command can access hardware)...

sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda bs=512 count=1

That will zero out the first sector and completes in no time. It's much
faster than reformatting the whole disk. You have to make absolutely
sure of the "hda" part - obviously pointing commands that write to disk,
at the wrong disk drive, will make a mess. That's the kind of command
I'd use, if Windows installer seems not to like the current contents
of the MBR. Since it erases all the partitions, it isn't a command
to use lightly. If you want to repair a disk, where you used that
command by accident, use a copy of "Testdisk", and at least all
the partitions will come back.

You can share your current partition structure with us, using PTEDIT32
or taking a snapshot of Disk Management or both. Post it on a photo
sharing site.

ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/english_us_canada/tools/pq/utilities/PTEDIT32.zip

When running that in Windows 7, you run it elevated as Admin, to avoid
getting an error 5.

This shows what PTEDIT32 looks like, compared to Disk Management.
The Unknown partition is type 0x83, which is something like Linux EXT2.
So PTEDIT32 gives you a little different info you can use. This
particular 83 partition isn't an OS, and is just a data dump. So it's not
multi-boot or anything. If you double-click the "83" field, PTEDIT32
will show a popup list of some popular partition types.

http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/6712/primaryparions.gif

Paul

 

[Tinker Tanker]

Tinker Tanker wrote:

There is an example of a 0xC0000225 here (involves winload.exe) . This
one looks like some kind of issue with the elements of the bootup process.

http://www.vmadmin.co.uk/microsoft/43-winserver2008/189-winsvr08bootmgrerror


When you say "Linux works fine 32 bit or 64", are you referring to using
a LiveCD version, or are you referring to having Linux already installed
on the same disk ? Linux has its own boot manager (GRUB or GRUB2), as
does Windows.
The last one to install, will mess up how the other one works, and will
attempt
to take control. Knowing that is going to happen, is why a common piece
of advice with Windows, is to install an older version of a Windows OS,
before installing a newer one, as the newer one knows how to safely take
control of the older one. The boot manager screen of the latest OS,
then contains entries for both OSes as boot options.

It's possible, if you're attempting to multi-boot (have two OSes installed
on the same disk), that the issues you're seeing on reboot, have to do with
the multi-boot part.

On a second web page (not the same site as the above), I see...

"you get the error "0xc000000e Missing or corrupt winload.exe"

Cause of the Problem:

This particular error is caused by missing or damaged information
in the master boot record."

The Master Boot Record is in sector 0. Typically, an OS installer, will
write its own stuff in there. When I installed Linux on my computer on one
hard drive, the install CD managed to erase and overwrite sector 0 on
another of my disks (the one with WinXP on it). Luckily, as soon as
the computer wouldn't boot, I knew what messed it up. A little "fixmbr"
magic from the WinXP repair console and it was OK again. (Windows 7
uses a different command for that purpose, but there are similarities.)

Windows 7 also has two ways it can install. It can install two primary
partitions, one perhaps 100MB in size (tiny) and the main C: partition
next to it. The boot stuff is in the tiny partition. I've also seen
a Linux install do this (Gentoo works that way). You can also force
Windows 7 to install all of that stuff into the one partition (more
like a traditional install), and at least if it's put into one
partition, it saves precious Primary partitions, so you have
more room for multi-booting. I can't say right off hand, where
the wisdom is, of wasting a Primary partition. I can say in the
Gentoo case, when I installed both 32 bit Gentoo and 64 bit Gentoo
on the same hard drive, it took me the better part of a full day
to get it running right.

So if you're installing multiple OSes, perhaps you could explain
what's on the disk already.

The MBR Sector is 512 bytes. There is a flag pattern at the
end, something like 0xAA55 or 0x55AA. When an installer CD/DVD sees
the flag value, it knows another OS has loaded the MBR with something.
If you're having troubles, and know for a fact that only one OS
will be installed and be present on the disk, then erasing the MBR is
a good thing to do, before beginning the install (that simple operation,
*wipes out* all partitions! - it is the fastest way to erase a disk).
When the installer CD sees no 0xAA55 at the end of the first sector,
it will then blow away the MBR. I've had problems in the past,
installing Windows on a disk that previously had Linux on it,
and erasing the MBR was all it needed. One way to do that, taking
only seconds, is to boot a Linux LiveCD, and use the "dd" command
like this (sudo makes you root so the command can access hardware)...

sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda bs=512 count=1

That will zero out the first sector and completes in no time. It's much
faster than reformatting the whole disk. You have to make absolutely
sure of the "hda" part - obviously pointing commands that write to disk,
at the wrong disk drive, will make a mess. That's the kind of command
I'd use, if Windows installer seems not to like the current contents
of the MBR. Since it erases all the partitions, it isn't a command
to use lightly. If you want to repair a disk, where you used that
command by accident, use a copy of "Testdisk", and at least all
the partitions will come back.

You can share your current partition structure with us, using PTEDIT32
or taking a snapshot of Disk Management or both. Post it on a photo
sharing site.

ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/english_us_canada/tools/pq/utilities/PTEDIT32.zip


When running that in Windows 7, you run it elevated as Admin, to avoid
getting an error 5.

This shows what PTEDIT32 looks like, compared to Disk Management.
The Unknown partition is type 0x83, which is something like Linux EXT2.
So PTEDIT32 gives you a little different info you can use. This
particular 83 partition isn't an OS, and is just a data dump. So it's not
multi-boot or anything. If you double-click the "83" field, PTEDIT32
will show a popup list of some popular partition types.

http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/6712/primaryparions.gif

Paul

- pulled RAM down to 8gb
- disconnected form net
- completely wiped the disk
- created just the one partition for windows
- installed the x64 version and...

got stuck on the same snag on the very first virgin restart 0xc0000225.

The DVD is good because it installed the x64 version on a 64-bit/8gb
laptop without any problems whatsoever.

It might be something with the motherboard or the way it handles memory,
I have neither an idea what the problem is nor any more time to waste on it.

Thanks for all the input, I'll just keep the 32 bit job, I only boot
windows maybe once a year anyway.

 

[Seth]

- pulled RAM down to 8gb
- disconnected form net
- completely wiped the disk
- created just the one partition for windows
- installed the x64 version and...

got stuck on the same snag on the very first virgin restart 0xc0000225.

The DVD is good because it installed the x64 version on a 64-bit/8gb
laptop without any problems whatsoever.

It might be something with the motherboard or the way it handles memory, I
have neither an idea what the problem is nor any more time to waste on it.

Thanks for all the input, I'll just keep the 32 bit job, I only boot
windows maybe once a year anyway.

Well, should you choose to give it one last shot... check in your BIOS for
"OS Install Mode" (or similar). It actually limits RAM shown to installer
during OS installation. Haven't seen a need to use this feature since
pre-SP1 Vista days but you never know.

 

[Paul]

- pulled RAM down to 8gb
- disconnected form net
- completely wiped the disk
- created just the one partition for windows
- installed the x64 version and...

got stuck on the same snag on the very first virgin restart 0xc0000225.

The DVD is good because it installed the x64 version on a 64-bit/8gb
laptop without any problems whatsoever.

It might be something with the motherboard or the way it handles memory,
I have neither an idea what the problem is nor any more time to waste on
it.

Thanks for all the input, I'll just keep the 32 bit job, I only boot
windows maybe once a year anyway.

There is one report here, that there are the odd bad hex core CPU out there.

http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx...l=Crosshair+IV+Formula&page=1&SLanguage=en-us

There is also apparently a problem between Samsung F3 drives and SB850
Southbridge.

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/hdd/faqView.do?b2b_bbs_msg_id=308

There could be a Jmicron SATA port you could test with, put the hard
drive on there and give it a shot.

I doubt those have anything to do with your problem, but that's to demonstrate
it could be a particular combination of hardware at fault.

The Crosshair IV comes in Formula and Extreme models, and the Asus forums
should have a forum for each. When I tried the Newegg customer reviews
for some Crosshair boards, I didn't see anything similar to your symptoms.

Paul

 

[Tinker Tanker]

There is one report here, that there are the odd bad hex core CPU out
there.

http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx...l=Crosshair+IV+Formula&page=1&SLanguage=en-us



There is also apparently a problem between Samsung F3 drives and
SB850 Southbridge.

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/hdd/faqView.do?b2b_bbs_msg_id=308

There could be a Jmicron SATA port you could test with, put the
hard drive on there and give it a shot.

I doubt those have anything to do with your problem, but that's to
demonstrate it could be a particular combination of hardware at
fault.

The Crosshair IV comes in Formula and Extreme models, and the Asus
forums should have a forum for each. When I tried the Newegg customer
reviews for some Crosshair boards, I didn't see anything similar to
your symptoms.

Paul

I've given it one day, it gets no more ;-)

You KNOW how time consuming these sessions can get.

 

[Roland Schweiger]

You do know that you will need a 64bit version of Windows7 to efficiently
'see' more than 4GB of RAM?

 

[Tim Slattery]

You do know that you will need a 64bit version of Windows7 to efficiently
'see' more than 4GB of RAM?

You'll need a 64-bit version to see more than 4GB at all, let alone
efficiently.

 

[BillW50]

You'll need a 64-bit version to see more than 4GB at all, let alone
efficiently.

How much memory do you need Tim? It doesn't matter which OS I am using;
Linux, XP, Windows 7, or whatever... I rarely ever need anything more
than 1GB. Some of my XP and this Linux even has the swapfile turned off
and it still rarely needs more than 1GB.

So what is the deal about all of this wanting more RAM? Does it has to
do with keeping up with the Jones?

 

[Ken Blake]

You'll need a 64-bit version to see more than 4GB at all, let alone
efficiently.

Right, but if I can modify that slightly: You'll need a 64-bit
version to see more than about 3.1GB at all, let alone efficiently.

 

[Roy Smith]

You do know that you will need a 64bit version of Windows7 to
efficiently 'see' more than 4GB of RAM?

Well if you take a peek at the message headers then I would assume that
he is aware of that. The headers show this:

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17)
Gecko/20110414 SUSE/3.1.10 Thunderbird/3.1.10


So the OP was already using a 64 bit OS when he posted his message.


--

Roy Smith
Windows XP Home
Thunderbird 3.1.10
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:24:02 PM

 

[Roland Schweiger]

Right, but if I can modify that slightly: You'll need a 64-bit

version to see more than about 3.1GB at all, let alone efficiently.

Well it does depend much on the hardware,
e.g. i have a notebook (about 5y old) with a DualCore Intel T2230 (a
non-64bit processor)
and 4GB installed. I enabled the PAE (the physical address extension) on the
BCDEDIT to 'forceenable'.
At least the graphics adapter memory is cached into the "fourth GB" and the
OS sees just about 3,1GB.
However this also depends on the BIOS and the way it 'reports' memory to the
OS ...


In any case (although it does depend on what you actually use your system
for),
i nowadays reccomend 64bit versions of Windows.
Most 32bit software will run anyway on the WOW, and the problem with Windows
not seeing all your memory, is gone in the 64bit versions.

greetings

Roland Schweiger

 

[Rob]

How much memory do you need Tim? It doesn't matter which OS I am using;
Linux, XP, Windows 7, or whatever... I rarely ever need anything more
than 1GB. Some of my XP and this Linux even has the swapfile turned off
and it still rarely needs more than 1GB.

So what is the deal about all of this wanting more RAM? Does it has to
do with keeping up with the Jones?

Try editing HD video, or simultaneously manipulating a few hundred
RAW images from the latest DSLRs (as one does in astrophotography)
and you soon find out!
For web-browsing, email, wordprocessing, simple spreadsheets etc etc,
more memory would make little difference for most users, except
those who like to have 20 windows open at once..
Lots of folk also now run Virtual Machines and this is something
else that having bags of memory really helps with.

 

[Tom Lake]

"Tim Slattery" wrote in message

You do know that you will need a 64bit version of Windows7 to efficiently
'see' more than 4GB of RAM?

You'll need a 64-bit version to see more than 4GB at all, let alone
efficiently.

No, Physical Address Extension (PAE) will let you use all your memory in a
32-bit OS. True, no single program can be larger than the 32-bit limit but
now you
can run multiple programs in memory at once without paging. I've
successfully
used PAE on a machine with 12 GB RAM and 32-bit Win 7 could use it all.

64-bit is definitely the way to go if you want large databases or do a lot
of CAD,
though. Those programs can benefit by the larger address space of the
64-bit
OS.

Tom Lake

 

[Tom Lake]

"Tom Lake" wrote in message
"Tim Slattery" wrote in message

You'll need a 64-bit version to see more than 4GB at all, let alone
efficiently.

No, Physical Address Extension (PAE) will let you use all your memory in a
32-bit OS. True, no single program can be larger than the 32-bit limit but
now you
can run multiple programs in memory at once without paging. I've
successfully
used PAE on a machine with 12 GB RAM and 32-bit Win 7 could use it all.

64-bit is definitely the way to go if you want large databases or do a lot
of CAD,
though. Those programs can benefit by the larger address space of the
64-bit
OS.

Tom Lake

Here's a link to how to activate PAE:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796(v=vs.85).aspx

Tom L

 

[Roland Schweiger]

No, Physical Address Extension (PAE) will let you use all your memory in a

32-bit OS. True, no single program can be larger than the 32-bit limit but
now you
can run multiple programs in memory at once without paging. I've

(...)

About a year ago this interested me a lot but i do suppose it depends on the
hardware as well.
Particular example:
Right now i am sitting at an elderly notebook with a DualCore Intel T2230
mobile processor,
2x 2GB RAM are installed, the BIOS itself only reports 3GB, OS is Win7
Ultimate 32bit
In the BCDEDIT i forced both to enable DEP and PAE, the last lines of my
boot configuration read


nx AlwaysOn
pae ForceEnable


RightClicking on 'my computer' properties says that 4GB are installed but
only 3GB are usable.

Still i suppose that some of the 4th GB is used, at least for caching the
BIOS.

All my newer computers use Win7 x64 versions,
still the thing interests me.
Any sugestions how to make Win7 x86 use all 4GB memory even if the BIOS only
reports 3GB?

greetings

Roland Schweiger