Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows



Thank you Pat.  That was a most illuminating and helpful description of what
the hell system resources is and does as well as how it works in WIN 98.  I
already know some of this but did not really understand it until your
response.  It may be because it was an excellent response or because I have
gained some computer aging and maturity along with the increased background
that goes with it to make me ready to understand it now.

As for your second paragraph, I concur which is why I stated in some of my
posts that it has not been my experience but I may have been lucky.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Pat Perez
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 11:34 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


Strictly speaking, what Win 3.x through Me consider 'system resources' are a
fixed amount of memory regardless of how much system memory you have. I seem
to recall that in 3.x it was two 64K heaps and increased in 95, where it has
stayed the same until Me. These heaps control how many environment
variables, how much memory can be utilized by applications for dynamic
variable access and various and sundry other things. One of the real big
resource hogs was fonts. The more you have, the fewer system resources
available. The increase in the heap sizes after 3.1 mitigated the effect,
but didn't eliminate it as a cause. In short, any 9x based variant has
resource handicaps as compared to NT/2000/XP, which can just keep assigning
more memory (either physical or virtual) as needed.

The 512 meg barrier described is real, but due to different uses to which
people put their computers may or may not affect you. Additionally, some
motherboard/chipset combinations have issues with large memory spaces (of
course in 10 years we'll laugh at the present day notions of what large
memory is).


Pat

----- Original Message -----
From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LAURIE@advancenet.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:57 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> As I have already said in earlier posts, my experience with ram greater
than
> 512MB on two different Win 98 systems have been different in that I have
> been less likely to run out of system resources, get out of RAM messages,
or
> find the additional RAM to be a waste or unused.  Given my experiences
being
> different from that of others and what has been written, I would suggest
> that you cannot accept at face value as a universal given that RAM above
> 512MB with WIN 98 will be a waste or unutilized; nor can you assume that
it
> will create problems in WIN 98.  You have to just get some additional RAM
> and try it on your system with your motherboard and chipset to see if it
> works and works well.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:43 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> I understood and would like someone to confirm that the Windows resource
> meter had nothing to do with how much RAM you had, it was only a measure
of
> usage of some stack or similar.
>
> When I increased my RAM I didn't notice any change, and I still regularly
> run out of resources because I seem to run some programmes that are heavy
> on resources (Eudora and Info Select) and because windows is just hopeless
> at managing resources, and because IE5 gets confused and refuses to
> release, until there are no more left.  I have to reboot regularly just to
> regain resources.
>
> I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or
RAM
> is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.
>
> Julian
>
> Win 98 non-SE
> 384MB RAM
>
> At 04:03 27/07/01, you wrote:
> >.  I noticed in both systems that since
> >the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
> >less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> >resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication
that
> >the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.
>
>
> Julian Robinson
> in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.