If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Which app eats your resources.
"FACE" wrote in message ... Just a note here....... I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible. The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources. My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset. Other than that, I have nothing at all against Win 98. Consider this if the machines are going to be used for internet a lot. FACE On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:06 -0400, 98 Guy in microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote: I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to 850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw (LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite), Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very fast, very quite machines. They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost). Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc). |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:34:25 -0000, "SFB - KB3MM" in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote: Which app eats your resources. It appears that the most voracious is to run IE and Netscape simultaneously -- which I do for particular preferences of each. That, combined with a few shockwave and Flash files in the pages -- and the few popups with the same flavor of GDI intensive files that get through IE with numeric IPs or one-time appearances -- seems to be worst. (Although I have always used Netscape for email, I have recently begun to use the browser more intensely.) I believe it is the GDI that runs out. My Agent newsreader icons go black, the analog third party clock goes solid.... Also, I run Spyguard in the background, as well as running Spybot S&D and Adaware daily. There does not appear to be "unauthorized" activity going on. FACE "FACE" wrote in message .. . Just a note here....... I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible. The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources. My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset. Other than that, I have nothing at all against Win 98. Consider this if the machines are going to be used for internet a lot. FACE On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:06 -0400, 98 Guy in microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote: I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to 850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw (LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite), Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very fast, very quite machines. They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost). Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc). |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
I think they are always dynamically allocated.
WIN9X systems only have a fixed size area 64 KB so the amout of RAM is static. There's no limit in the NT family. "FACE" wrote in message ... Just a note here....... I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible. The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources. My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset. Other than that, I have nothing at all against Win 98. Consider this if the machines are going to be used for internet a lot. FACE On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:06 -0400, 98 Guy in microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote: I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to 850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw (LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite), Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very fast, very quite machines. They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost). Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc). |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"SFB - KB3MM" wrote in message
... WIN9X systems only have a fixed size area 64 KB so the amout of RAM is static. Windows 9x actually has five fixed-size resource-heaps. Three are 2MB and two are 64KB. It's the 64KB heaps that cause the problem with low resources. If either one runs out, you can't allocate any further resources on any of the five heaps. However, as long as free resources are kept above 10% there shouldn't be any problems. If you're constantly running out of resources, run fewer programs at once. If you still run out, you have a resource leak (a program isn't releasing reources when it's done with them). Trial and error will soon identify the culprit(s). There's no limit in the NT family. Actually, there is a physical limit (resources are not infinite). However the limits are so far in excess of most people's needs they are effectively unlimited. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
OK. Perhaps i misused a word. :-)
On the subject of System Resources, I think we pretty well thrashed it out in a thread last August found at: http://www.google.com/groups?safe=of...n&num=30&hl=en Sorry, but Tinyurl does not seem to be working completely right now -- I have no doubt that it will be soon though. FACE On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 03:56:21 -0000, "SFB - KB3MM" in microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote: I think they are always dynamically allocated. WIN9X systems only have a fixed size area 64 KB so the amout of RAM is static. There's no limit in the NT family. "FACE" wrote in message .. . Just a note here....... I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible. The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources. My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset. Other than that, I have nothing at all against Win 98. Consider this if the machines are going to be used for internet a lot. FACE On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:06 -0400, 98 Guy in microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote: I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to 850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw (LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite), Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very fast, very quite machines. They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost). Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc). |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"FACE" wrote in message news OK. Perhaps i misused a word. :-) On the subject of System Resources, I think we pretty well thrashed it out in a thread last August found at: http://www.google.com/groups?safe=of...n&num=30&hl=en Sorry, but Tinyurl does not seem to be working completely right now -- I have no doubt that it will be soon though. Seems to be working fine: http://tinyurl.com/3k4bk On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 03:56:21 -0000, "SFB - KB3MM" in microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote: I think they are always dynamically allocated. WIN9X systems only have a fixed size area 64 KB so the amout of RAM is static. There's no limit in the NT family. "FACE" wrote in message . .. Just a note here....... I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible. The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources. My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset. Other than that, I have nothing at all against Win 98. Consider this if the machines are going to be used for internet a lot. FACE On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:06 -0400, 98 Guy in microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote: I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to 850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw (LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite), Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very fast, very quite machines. They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost). Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Money 99 and Regional Settings problem | David | General | 0 | October 5th 04 02:41 PM |
Importing (some) settings from 98 to fresh install of 98SE | Michele Dondi | Setup & Installation | 11 | July 24th 04 08:42 PM |
ActiveX settings | Wade Koehn | Monitors & Displays | 0 | July 21st 04 04:54 PM |
lan settings | joe | Networking | 1 | June 25th 04 10:50 AM |
Put Documents and Settings on D partition? | Clark G | General | 1 | June 11th 04 06:01 AM |