System Resources versus RAM

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question466.htm

If interested, be sure to move on to the 2nd page on how it all works
together.

This is what I found for "heap space" as stated in the first page of the
previous weblink that I provided above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heap_space

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

Remember that the operating system (windows 95/98) designate the 64K region
for heap space for the applications to use. Its up to the programmer to
allow an "out" to give up the memory space designated within this area when
said application is closed.
--
Dave

"Larry" wrote in message
...
A few days ago there was interesting thread discussing what System
Resources
are. A couple of posters pointed out that System Resources, while it is a
special type of memory, isn't the same as RAM.

However, no one, as far as I could tell, said what is the relationship, if
any, between SR and RAM.

Also, how can you find out how much available RAM there is on your machine
as distinct from SR? The Performance tab only shows SR.

Or does that not matter, since only System Resources matters as far as the
machine's ability to function is concerned?

Or let's put it this way: Why does available SR matter more than available
RAM?

Larry

A few days ago there was interesting thread discussing what System Resources
are. A couple of posters pointed out that System Resources, while it is a
special type of memory, isn't the same as RAM.
However, no one, as far as I could tell, said what is the relationship, if
any, between SR and RAM.

Am I right when I think it is like this?:

there are two 64KB "Resources" memory areas, USER and GDI,
that contain 32bit pointers to memory where the applications
store data like icons and windowcontroldata (two kinds of data).
(the third "system resources" is just a number calculated
to show the smallest %-number of the two others to the user)

if either GDI or USER gets full, then no applicaion
can point to new data of that kind, and since the application
don't expect that that could happen, it can't continue
and thereby "hangs". (a good program should perhaps
start closing not so important things like buttonbars to free
some space in the resource pointer area or tell the user
to close some windows first?)


Can this description be made shorter and clearer, for a
non-programmer? yeah a pointer is a reference to a place in memory.

The reason USER and GDI areas are 64KB is because the
applications use 16bit pointers to use them, and 2^16 is 64K.
So we can't just make these areas larger. I think winXP
have separate USER/GDI-areas per application instead,
but since some Resources is used by multiple applications
toghether, I'm not sure how that can work.

Normal memory areas that the programs have their code
and private data can allways be swapped out to disk
as Jeff mentioned, so as long one have free disk space
there should be no crashes beacuse of lack of RAM,
but you can't swap resource-pointers out to disk (or to
other ram outside the 64KB areas)

Am I right in that both the GDI&USER Resource (pointer) areas,
and the data they point to is located in the memory adress space
between 2GB and 3GB (memory addresses that are shared between
all the applications) ?

Also, how can you find out how much available RAM there is on your machine
as distinct from SR? The Performance tab only shows SR.

In windows 98se at least there is a number 'physical memory
available to windows' in the About-dialogboxes in filemanager etc
but I think that is total amount, not amount free.
Should have been... and USER and GDI separated too.

Or does that not matter, since only System Resources matters as far as the
machine's ability to function is concerned?

I believe USER resource is most imporant problem,
you can live with black icons but not 0% user resource area
Just like you can live (but slow) with lots of memory
swapped out

A few days ago there was interesting thread discussing what System Resources
are. A couple of posters pointed out that System Resources, while it is a
special type of memory, isn't the same as RAM.
However, no one, as far as I could tell, said what is the relationship, if
any, between SR and RAM.

Am I right when I think it is like this?:

there are two 64KB "Resources" memory areas, USER and GDI,
that contain 32bit pointers to memory where the applications
store data like icons and windowcontroldata (two kinds of data).
(the third "system resources" is just a number calculated
to show the smallest %-number of the two others to the user)

if either GDI or USER gets full, then no applicaion
can point to new data of that kind, and since the application
don't expect that that could happen, it can't continue
and thereby "hangs". (a good program should perhaps
start closing not so important things like buttonbars to free
some space in the resource pointer area or tell the user
to close some windows first?)


Can this description be made shorter and clearer, for a
non-programmer? yeah a pointer is a reference to a place in memory.

The reason USER and GDI areas are 64KB is because the
applications use 16bit pointers to use them, and 2^16 is 64K.
So we can't just make these areas larger. I think winXP
have separate USER/GDI-areas per application instead,
but since some Resources is used by multiple applications
toghether, I'm not sure how that can work.

Normal memory areas that the programs have their code
and private data can allways be swapped out to disk
as Jeff mentioned, so as long one have free disk space
there should be no crashes beacuse of lack of RAM,
but you can't swap resource-pointers out to disk (or to
other ram outside the 64KB areas)

Am I right in that both the GDI&USER Resource (pointer) areas,
and the data they point to is located in the memory adress space
between 2GB and 3GB (memory addresses that are shared between
all the applications) ?

Also, how can you find out how much available RAM there is on your machine
as distinct from SR? The Performance tab only shows SR.

In windows 98se at least there is a number 'physical memory
available to windows' in the About-dialogboxes in filemanager etc
but I think that is total amount, not amount free.
Should have been... and USER and GDI separated too.

Or does that not matter, since only System Resources matters as far as the
machine's ability to function is concerned?

I believe USER resource is most imporant problem,
you can live with black icons but not 0% user resource area
Just like you can live (but slow) with lots of memory
swapped out

Well, the 64K heaps are indeed stored in RAM, and I believe it's not in a
special RAM chip on the MB or anything like that!, but it's just a small and
very tiny part of the system RAM that is being used (a *negligibly small
part of it*). That's why I made the statement that it has nothing to do
with the amount of RAM you have installed, although technically that is a
bit misleading - but it emphasizes the point that no matter how much RAM you
have installed, it's immaterial here - you can (and sometimes will) still
have that system resource problem. I mean, we're not talking about
computers with say only 512 *KB* of RAM any more!! (512 *MB*, for sure, but
NOT 512 *KB* or anything close to that)

Jeff Richards wrote:
Of course RAM is essential for the machine to operate. No-one suggested
otherwise. And the heaps that are used for system resources occupy a
portion of that RAM. But issues relating to low or insufficient resources
have nothing to do with the amount of RAM installed in the machine - they
are entirely to do with a Windows design feature that places a limit on
how
much memory is accessible to the routines that need to get to those
resources. Adding more RAM will not solve a resources problem - the two
are
simply not connected.

You will not have problems related to insufficient resources if you have
insufficient RAM installed - the system will stop operating for other
reasons long before resource limitations become an issue.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

"thanatoid" wrote in message
...
"Bill in Co." wrote in
:

The system resource limitation in Win9x is limited by the
64K max heap space, and has nothing to do with the amount
of RAM you have installed. (As I recall, there are three
separate 64K memory locations used for these memory heaps,
one for GDI, one for System, and one for something else -
can't recall).

Since no one addressed my statement that SR /DO/ have
*something* to do with RAM, I looked up "heap space" and it does
not say whether it is part of the total RAM memory of some
mysterious little chip hidden in the MB or BIOS which contains
just enough memory to cause all the Sys Resources problems but
not enough (by design, it IS old) to manage them, at least not
/well/.

Could you clarify please?

If you have enough applications running, OR one or two
misbehaving ones, you CAN run out of system resources, and
you'll have to shut down the app. Normally, you'll get a
stern warning when its close to the limit. (If you are
unable or unwilling to shut it down, it will crash, and
you'll have to reboot).

SNIP

Or let's put it this way: Why does available SR matter
more than available RAM?

I wouldn't say it matters /more/ - please correct me, anyone, if
I am wrong:

RAM /is/ essential, a computer with /no/ RAM will not start. I
am asking Bill above whether the heaps allocated to Sys Res are
IN the RAM or somewhere else. To my knowledge, there IS not any
(let alone enough) RAM memory anywhere on the MB or BIOS (maybe
a little in the BIOS but not enough to manage Sys Res with it),
but I am very lacking in basic knowledge. (I can't believe I
just used the word "heap".)

But regardless of how much RAM you have, if you run out of Sys
Resources on a 9x Windows machine, your system will hang. So
BOTH are essential.

Sys Resources (WHEREVER they come from, hopefully Bill or
someone will finally tell me) are affected by the amount of
activity on your machine - and they only affect 9x systems. The
problem was solved in XP but I have been running 95 and 98 for
14 years and only rarely have I had the machine crash because of
Sys Res going down THAT low. Some apps are much more demanding
of them than others - I have run 10 instances of the OffByOne
browser on a 64MB 166MHz machine and nothing happened. I usually
have between 65-90% (often 75-90%) in the 3 sections which is
very good.

When you start getting black boxes instead of icons, empty
spaces in the screen, or other weirdness (OR a warning if you
have a program running which provides such), it is time to shut
down some programs. It is one of the reasons I always say do ONE
thing at a time, let alone when it is something as critical as
burning a disc or creating a complex publication.

Even icons affect use up GDI Sys Res - I have a little program
called Toggle which turns off all icons, and while I used to
like having various pictures as "wallpapers", it has been blank
for some time. Not that it eats THAT much memory, in this case I
just got bored. A blank wall is kind of peaceful.

Sometimes, you can VERY suddenly and quickly run out of the
"heap space" (is that the correct phrase ;-) ?) and your system
will just hang. In 9x the ONLY thing you can do is reboot - and
you will lose whatever you have not saved - which is why I have
told everyone I know and everyone who has ever read me here and
elsewhere OVER and OVER - NAME your file when it consists of 2
or 12 bytes, and save it every few moments - or if the program
allows, auto-save, OFTEN.
No one listens, of course, and you constantly hear horror
stories about a 3 page letter disappearing. Well, if you're too
stupid or lazy to click Ctl-S when you start a new file of any
kind, IMO you deserve to lose it. I am not that much smarter
than anyone else, in fact many have called me an idiot. But it
has happened to me, and I /learned/.


--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

Well, the 64K heaps are indeed stored in RAM, and I believe it's not in a
special RAM chip on the MB or anything like that!, but it's just a small and
very tiny part of the system RAM that is being used (a *negligibly small
part of it*). That's why I made the statement that it has nothing to do
with the amount of RAM you have installed, although technically that is a
bit misleading - but it emphasizes the point that no matter how much RAM you
have installed, it's immaterial here - you can (and sometimes will) still
have that system resource problem. I mean, we're not talking about
computers with say only 512 *KB* of RAM any more!! (512 *MB*, for sure, but
NOT 512 *KB* or anything close to that)

Jeff Richards wrote:
Of course RAM is essential for the machine to operate. No-one suggested
otherwise. And the heaps that are used for system resources occupy a
portion of that RAM. But issues relating to low or insufficient resources
have nothing to do with the amount of RAM installed in the machine - they
are entirely to do with a Windows design feature that places a limit on
how
much memory is accessible to the routines that need to get to those
resources. Adding more RAM will not solve a resources problem - the two
are
simply not connected.

You will not have problems related to insufficient resources if you have
insufficient RAM installed - the system will stop operating for other
reasons long before resource limitations become an issue.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

"thanatoid" wrote in message
...
"Bill in Co." wrote in
:

The system resource limitation in Win9x is limited by the
64K max heap space, and has nothing to do with the amount
of RAM you have installed. (As I recall, there are three
separate 64K memory locations used for these memory heaps,
one for GDI, one for System, and one for something else -
can't recall).

Since no one addressed my statement that SR /DO/ have
*something* to do with RAM, I looked up "heap space" and it does
not say whether it is part of the total RAM memory of some
mysterious little chip hidden in the MB or BIOS which contains
just enough memory to cause all the Sys Resources problems but
not enough (by design, it IS old) to manage them, at least not
/well/.

Could you clarify please?

If you have enough applications running, OR one or two
misbehaving ones, you CAN run out of system resources, and
you'll have to shut down the app. Normally, you'll get a
stern warning when its close to the limit. (If you are
unable or unwilling to shut it down, it will crash, and
you'll have to reboot).

SNIP

Or let's put it this way: Why does available SR matter
more than available RAM?

I wouldn't say it matters /more/ - please correct me, anyone, if
I am wrong:

RAM /is/ essential, a computer with /no/ RAM will not start. I
am asking Bill above whether the heaps allocated to Sys Res are
IN the RAM or somewhere else. To my knowledge, there IS not any
(let alone enough) RAM memory anywhere on the MB or BIOS (maybe
a little in the BIOS but not enough to manage Sys Res with it),
but I am very lacking in basic knowledge. (I can't believe I
just used the word "heap".)

But regardless of how much RAM you have, if you run out of Sys
Resources on a 9x Windows machine, your system will hang. So
BOTH are essential.

Sys Resources (WHEREVER they come from, hopefully Bill or
someone will finally tell me) are affected by the amount of
activity on your machine - and they only affect 9x systems. The
problem was solved in XP but I have been running 95 and 98 for
14 years and only rarely have I had the machine crash because of
Sys Res going down THAT low. Some apps are much more demanding
of them than others - I have run 10 instances of the OffByOne
browser on a 64MB 166MHz machine and nothing happened. I usually
have between 65-90% (often 75-90%) in the 3 sections which is
very good.

When you start getting black boxes instead of icons, empty
spaces in the screen, or other weirdness (OR a warning if you
have a program running which provides such), it is time to shut
down some programs. It is one of the reasons I always say do ONE
thing at a time, let alone when it is something as critical as
burning a disc or creating a complex publication.

Even icons affect use up GDI Sys Res - I have a little program
called Toggle which turns off all icons, and while I used to
like having various pictures as "wallpapers", it has been blank
for some time. Not that it eats THAT much memory, in this case I
just got bored. A blank wall is kind of peaceful.

Sometimes, you can VERY suddenly and quickly run out of the
"heap space" (is that the correct phrase ;-) ?) and your system
will just hang. In 9x the ONLY thing you can do is reboot - and
you will lose whatever you have not saved - which is why I have
told everyone I know and everyone who has ever read me here and
elsewhere OVER and OVER - NAME your file when it consists of 2
or 12 bytes, and save it every few moments - or if the program
allows, auto-save, OFTEN.
No one listens, of course, and you constantly hear horror
stories about a 3 page letter disappearing. Well, if you're too
stupid or lazy to click Ctl-S when you start a new file of any
kind, IMO you deserve to lose it. I am not that much smarter
than anyone else, in fact many have called me an idiot. But it
has happened to me, and I /learned/.


--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

"Jeff Richards" wrote in
:

Of course RAM is essential for the machine to operate.
No-one suggested otherwise. And the heaps that are used
for system resources occupy a portion of that RAM. But
issues relating to low or insufficient resources have
nothing to do with the amount of RAM installed in the
machine - they are entirely to do with a Windows design
feature that places a limit on how much memory is
accessible to the routines that need to get to those
resources. Adding more RAM will not solve a resources
problem - the two are simply not connected.

Well, I appreciate you telling me that the heaps used by Sys Res
ARE part of RAM, since I was beginning to wonder. As to the two
being "simply NOT connected", I guess it's a matter of how one
likes to play with semantics.

SNIP

[Anal-retentive P.S. You top-posted and didn't snip /anything!/
Not nice!]

--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

"Jeff Richards" wrote in
:

Of course RAM is essential for the machine to operate.
No-one suggested otherwise. And the heaps that are used
for system resources occupy a portion of that RAM. But
issues relating to low or insufficient resources have
nothing to do with the amount of RAM installed in the
machine - they are entirely to do with a Windows design
feature that places a limit on how much memory is
accessible to the routines that need to get to those
resources. Adding more RAM will not solve a resources
problem - the two are simply not connected.

Well, I appreciate you telling me that the heaps used by Sys Res
ARE part of RAM, since I was beginning to wonder. As to the two
being "simply NOT connected", I guess it's a matter of how one
likes to play with semantics.

SNIP

[Anal-retentive P.S. You top-posted and didn't snip /anything!/
Not nice!]

--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

"Bill in Co." wrote in
:

Well, the 64K heaps are indeed stored in RAM, and I believe
it's not in a special RAM chip on the MB or anything like
that!, but it's just a small and very tiny part of the
system RAM that is being used (a *negligibly small part of
it*). That's why I made the statement that it has nothing
to do with the amount of RAM you have installed, although
technically that is a bit misleading - but it emphasizes
the point that no matter how much RAM you have installed,
it's immaterial here - you can (and sometimes will) still
have that system resource problem.

Thanks for replying.

Too lazy to check, but I believe I myself said that no matter
how much RAM you have on a 9x system, you WILL have trouble with
Sys Res if you aren't careful. I just wanted to know whether the
Sys Res were IN the RAM, and I now know they are.

OTOH, /no/ RAM, no working computer and NO Sys Res problems,
although I suppose that is like saying "never born, never any
health problems".

It would be interesting (it probably has been done) to research
what types of user actions are the most problematic and which
parts of the hardware - if any - play a significant part in Sys
Res depletion - like would a fancy graphics card deplete them
faster than a basic on-board chip, etc.

SNIP


--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

"Bill in Co." wrote in
:

Well, the 64K heaps are indeed stored in RAM, and I believe
it's not in a special RAM chip on the MB or anything like
that!, but it's just a small and very tiny part of the
system RAM that is being used (a *negligibly small part of
it*). That's why I made the statement that it has nothing
to do with the amount of RAM you have installed, although
technically that is a bit misleading - but it emphasizes
the point that no matter how much RAM you have installed,
it's immaterial here - you can (and sometimes will) still
have that system resource problem.

Thanks for replying.

Too lazy to check, but I believe I myself said that no matter
how much RAM you have on a 9x system, you WILL have trouble with
Sys Res if you aren't careful. I just wanted to know whether the
Sys Res were IN the RAM, and I now know they are.

OTOH, /no/ RAM, no working computer and NO Sys Res problems,
although I suppose that is like saying "never born, never any
health problems".

It would be interesting (it probably has been done) to research
what types of user actions are the most problematic and which
parts of the hardware - if any - play a significant part in Sys
Res depletion - like would a fancy graphics card deplete them
faster than a basic on-board chip, etc.

SNIP


--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

"Jeff Richards" wrote in
:

There is no relationship between system resources and RAM.

The total amount of RAM installed in the machine is usually
displayed during boot when the system does a RAM check.
Windows can tell you the installed RAM in Control Panel /
System in the General tab.

If you want to talk about 'available RAM' you need to
specify want you expect it to be available for. For
instance, if you are referring to the amount of RAM that is
free at any one time to load a new application, their
really isn't any such figure. Windows will re-arrange its
usage of RAM depending on what is happening at any moment.
You might calculate a figure for 'available RAM' using some
memory enquiry utility immediately after the machine has
booted, and then quite successfully load an application
that requires several times that amount of RAM. Windows
will simply stop using RAM for one particular purpose if
something more important comes along that needs it. If
that doesn't make enough RAM available for your
application, Windows might swap some lower priority tasks
out to disk and make that RAM available to the new
application. If there's still not enough available for the
application, Window might defer loading parts of that app
that won't be used initially, so it doesn't really require
as much RAM as you thought it did.

I could probably argue (not /disagree/, just semantically and
theoretically argue) every other sentence in this post, but I
won't.

Still, I sure hope never to see another thread on this subject
ever again!

--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?