I'm pretty sure the user resolved his problem, but I was left with the conundrum;
why does a Microsoft paper say that the rsl registry setting is no longer read, when it looks like according to this user, xp is reading the value if he creates it.
this didn't bother me much, since the paper says the value was removed, it didn't say the value is no longer valid...the default is allready max, no need for the value...what did bother me was that RegMon said nobody was looking at the value, yet never the less, creating the value resolved the users issue.
I told Jaimie Hanrahan about the conundrum, and asked him to take a look at this thread, which he did.
he's asked me in the past not to cut and paste his writing, but he chose to answer me in personal e-mail instead of posting the answer on this thread.
so, with my apologies to jeh, I'll paraphrase what he's come up with;
RegMon "hooks" don't look at anything running untill long after system initialization...the first stage of initilization is the time this value would be looked at by the os, and the os won't need to look at it again till the next boot
using Mark Russinovich's "strings" utility, RegistrySizeLimit does appear in ntoslrnl.exe...so it is referanced.
he did some experimenting, and spent more time on this then I thought he would...I guess it intrigued him as much as it did me
somehow, the hardware of this user has fabricated a restriction on the rsl, and so raising it in a registry value would work.