A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

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.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » Improving Performance
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Strange loss of system resources



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 9th 09, 04:49 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance
Buffalo
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 652
Default Strange loss of system resources



thanatoid wrote:
Well, it's certainly very nice of you to look up stuff like that
for someone, thank you.

I am aware of using that (or another monitoring) program and
checking resources (or RAM) use by programs one by one and
finding the ugly beast causing the problems, but to tell you the
honest truth, I am just /too damn lazy/ to go through the
process. If I got crashes every 3 minutes I might, but basically
everything runs actually better than it should.

Thanks again.


Sounds good to me.
Buffalo


  #22  
Old January 9th 09, 04:49 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance
Buffalo
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 652
Default Strange loss of system resources



thanatoid wrote:
Well, it's certainly very nice of you to look up stuff like that
for someone, thank you.

I am aware of using that (or another monitoring) program and
checking resources (or RAM) use by programs one by one and
finding the ugly beast causing the problems, but to tell you the
honest truth, I am just /too damn lazy/ to go through the
process. If I got crashes every 3 minutes I might, but basically
everything runs actually better than it should.

Thanks again.


Sounds good to me.
Buffalo


  #23  
Old January 9th 09, 05:17 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance
Buffalo
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 652
Default Strange loss of system resources



thanatoid wrote:
"PCR" wrote in
:

Top-posted intro:
WOW... Thanks for such a comprehensive reply. Really nice of
you.

Just for grins,
1)turn OFF your "FreeRAM XP Pro 1.40" program
2)Set ConservativeSwapFileUsage to 0 (This set to one sometimes helped in
game playing)\
3)Remove your limits on MaxPagingFileSize.


Try it, it is SO easy to change back.
Remember,all 'free ram' programs use ram and resources.
Who knows, one of the above 3 just might help.
Buffalo



  #24  
Old January 9th 09, 05:17 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance
Buffalo
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 652
Default Strange loss of system resources



thanatoid wrote:
"PCR" wrote in
:

Top-posted intro:
WOW... Thanks for such a comprehensive reply. Really nice of
you.

Just for grins,
1)turn OFF your "FreeRAM XP Pro 1.40" program
2)Set ConservativeSwapFileUsage to 0 (This set to one sometimes helped in
game playing)\
3)Remove your limits on MaxPagingFileSize.


Try it, it is SO easy to change back.
Remember,all 'free ram' programs use ram and resources.
Who knows, one of the above 3 just might help.
Buffalo



  #25  
Old January 10th 09, 03:10 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance
PCR
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 4,396
Default Strange loss of system resources

thanatoid wrote:
| "PCR" wrote in
| :
|
| Top-posted intro:
| WOW... Thanks for such a comprehensive reply. Really nice of
| you.

You are welcome.

| thanatoid wrote:
|| Hi gang.
||
|| Something a little strange is happening.
||
|| I am running 98SELite on a 2GHz machine with 1GB of RAM. I
|| have the following lines in system.ini and everything runs
|| fine (but... see later):
||
|| [vcache]
|| MinFileCache=0
|| MaxFileCache=524288
|
| That should be fine.
|
|| (another section)
|| MinPagingFileSize=204800
|| MaxPagingFileSize=204800
|
| Setting a max size for the swap file could get you in deep
| trouble with certain MVPs! Better not let Harper see this
| in particular! However, I doubt it affects resources.
|
| No, it doesn't, I was just describing the sys setup. The damn
| resources have 64K and that's that. And apparently NO program
| (except Ctl-Alt-Del) to free them up. SIGH.

Closing a program with Ctrl-Alt-Del won't necessarily free resources,
because the program may not do its housekeeping regarding the resource
heaps that way. The program needs to tell the system that heap space has
been freed. If a program has hung & cannot be closed normally, possibly
TaskInfo 2000 will get it to close in an orderly manner. I know
EndItAll2 will first send a close request to a hung program. If it still
fails to close, then it will be killed the way Ctrl-Alt-Del kills them.

|| (I haven't used ANY of the swap file since I put in the
|| 1GB RAM
|
| If the swap file isn't being used very often, consider...
|
| "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1"
| ...in System.ini, [386.Enh] Section.
|
| I have that line in there but I didn't think it was worth
| mentioning. I don't know if THAT accounts for the swap file not
| being used at all, or whether it's the 1GB of RAM, but whatever.

The more RAM, the less chance there will be a need to use the swap file.
Looks like "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" is meant to revert to Win95
determinations as to when to write to the swap file...

• INFO: The Windows 98 PageFile_Call_Async_Manager Service
(223294) - If this entry is absent from System.ini, the default setting
for ConservativeSwapfileUsage is 1 for Windows 95, and 0 (zero) for
Windows 98. When Windows 98 performs asynchronous ...
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/223294

• 125 tips for Windows 98
(835834) - ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1. This could reduce the amount of
disk swapping Windows does, and so speed up your system..
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/835834

| But I'm not sure it has anything to do with resources. And
| I can't quite recall what it is supposed to do! Maybe it
| reverts swap file handling back to Win95 methods, which I
| think spent less time anticipating the size to make the
| swap file. This is probably what you want to do-- instead
| of setting the max/min to the same number!
|
| I don't know. I've had the swap file set to min=max, about 2.5
| (this time it's just 200MB since nothing ever uses it anyway :-)
| , ever since 1998 or so. Hard to get rid of some habits.

It has been said, in a rare circumstance-- you could have a horrible
crash that way! That's why I discontinued the practice, myself-- though
it actually is suggested in Windows 98 Secrets (Livingston/Straub),
pp.1041-1042! It says to defrag the drive first for contiguous space.
Then, set both the max & min to same size of 2.5 x installed RAM. That
was nearly 1 GB for me! This is meant to reduce certain swap file
processing activity-- which I guess is re-sizing decision making.

| And EVERYBODY having a different opinion on the RIGHT way to set
| it up doesn't help either!

Maybe try the easily reversible experiments Buffalo has suggested.

|| Here's the weirdness:
||
|| I seem to be running out of system resources all the time
|| and quite rapidly - much more so than when I still had
|| just 256 MB of RAM. After about ½ hr on the web, I get to
|| about 20% on the 1st and 3rd resource and sometimes I have
|| to reboot a few minutes later.
|
| Does it happen just by connecting to the WEB (i.e., you've
| clicked your connectoid, thanatoid)-- or do you have to do
| something like NG activity, browsing, or downloading?
| Maybe...
|
| No, only the web, which is why after "sleeping" on it I have
| decided that it must be the Opera and FFox browsers... See my
| reply to Franc for more musings on browsers...

It could still be worthwhile to play with swap file & disk cache
settings, because they may have an effect on your browser's doings.
Also, check the size of your TIF storage area-- maybe make it larger or
even smaller.

| Do you have "System Monitor" in START... System Tools? If
| not, get it from "START, Settings, Control Panel,
| Add/Remove Programs, Windows Setup tab, D-Clk System Tools,
| check System Monitor, OK, Apply, OK". May as well take
| "Resource Meter", too. Now, go through the menus and at
| least have it display
|
| (a) Swap file in use.
| (b) Swap file size.
| (c) Swappable memory.
| (d) Unused physical memory.
| (e) Allocated memory.
| (f) Disk cache size.
| (g) Locked memory
| (h) Other memory
| (i) Kernel Processor Usage
| (j) Kernel Threads
|
| Keep an eye especially on Swap File in Use & Disk Cache
| Size before/after the problem begins.
|
| I feel /terrible/ saying this after you went to so much trouble
| describing the procedure, but I don't think I can muster up the
| patience to go through such a process. Also, I have played with
| System Monitor and I find it 50% mystifying and 50% annoying. I
| just LOVE it when you click the ? on "page discards" and it
| tells you "shows page discards", or something. How f*g helpful.
|
| So I have basically decided to forget about its existence.

That was basically all written long ago, not just now. I suspect disk
cache involvement in the resources problem. I know mine grows very large
when I get a resources crash over a different matter.

| SNIP
|
| Here is what I always post about resources...
|
| Generally, if you've got any Resources at all, you've got
| enough (said Harper or Martell). This is because it won't
| blow, until Resources are zero. Then, you get an out of
| memory error (no matter how much RAM you've got).
|
| Yes, I sort of knew that and I read more about it as well.
| I have one of many technicians' favorite tools, a RAM MANAGER!!!
|
| The one I use on this machine is FreeRAM XP Pro 1.40. It's free,
| and works on 9x-XP. (Maybe Vista, although WHO CARES ;-)
|
| Leaving aside the endless discussion of whether its basic
| functionality is of /any/ use to anyone whatsoever, it does have
| ONE feature which I think /anyone/ will agree is useful... You
| can set it to warn you when the damn System Resources fall below
| a certain percentage. In fact, that's the only reason I know
| that's what's been happening, other than system fonts all over
| the screen and no icons within the Alt-Tab switching...

Resource Meter puts up a warning of its own. Unfortunately, sometimes
that warning is hidden under another window! But its icon in the Tray
also will turn red-- if only one can remember to look at it once in a
while!

| Perhaps put Resource Meter in your Tray, to see how low
| they get. A reboot would clear it, but, obviously, it's
| better to cleanup your Startup Group. Do you have "Resource
| Meter" in START... System Tools? If not, get it from
| "START, Settings, Control Panel, Add/Remove Programs,
| Windows Setup tab, D-Clk System Tools, check System
| Resource Meter, OK, Apply, OK". May as well take "System
| Monitor", too.
|
| Aarggh! ;-)
|
| Right now FreeRAM XP is telling me I have 65%, 65%, and 77%. Not
| bad. I have XNews running, Firefox is loaded but I haven't
| gotten around to going to a site with it yet (trying to find the
| link as I write this!). Not bad.

Those are respectable figures. That 1st figure -- system resources -- is
always set to the lower of the other two. It has no separate meaning of
its own. My own figures right now are 50% System, 50% User, 70% GDI. I'm
online in this NG & have done some browsing.

| (A little later, I have 2 FFox windows open in addition to
| above, and I am at 56%, 56%, 69%. Still not bad. There were NO
| images to speak of on any of the pages I have gone through.)

Keep it up. Check those resources after going to each of your favorite
sites. Do they increase after closing a site? Try closing the browser
too to see whether it will free them.

| The meter will show three figures: System, User & GDI.
| System is set to the lower of the others. GDI, I take to be
| the province of one's Display Adapter & out of one's
| control, except by prayer maybe. I know my GDI resources
| went up after switching to an LSD
|
| ahem...

Yikes! I only did that once-- & I didn't like it!

| monitor.
|
| Very interesting,. Another argument for my arsenal of anti-LCD
| monitor information.

No-- I have more GDI resources with this LCD monitor than I had with its
non-LCD predecessors!

| Then again, everybody uses XP and Vista, so...
|
| User Resources
| can be controlled by limiting the number of programs
| running.
|
| http://www.pcmag.com/ 's StartUpCop has "undo", and it is
| more than a combination of "START, Run, MSInfo32, Software
| Environment, Startup Programs" and "START, Run, MSConfig,
| Startup tab". It can even do a permanent delete from the
| Startup Group. This is configurable, and one may maintain
| multiple configurations of items to include in the Group.
|
| I use IARSN's TaskInfo 2000, and have been for years. The
| freeware version is better than the paid version! Anyway, it's
| great at showing RAM used and dozens of other things, and it
| will also kill programs that don't show up or won't die with
| TaskManager.
|
| For startup, I have StartUp Changer 2000, and my startup is VERY
| conservative. After a boot up, doing nothing, I have 80-90& (I
| forget exactly) in all 3 Sys Resources.

That's good, then. Yea, like me.

| Resources are starting to make me as crazy as TIFs now. I
| don't fully understand it, my book ("Windows 98 Secrets"
| [Livingston/Straub]), pp.1126-1127, says, Resources are
| lists (aka heaps). "The lists point to areas of memory
| where user interface elements (and other items) are stored
| -- things like dialog boxes, windows, and so on." From
| that, I divine these are lists of POINTERS to locations in
| RAM. These lists have a maximum size, and when they are
| used up, your resources are gone. Windows generates an out
| of memory message upon the next request that needs space in
| a list. Even if you have plenty of RAM, the list won't get
| any longer. Even though each entry in the 32-bit heap can
| address an area of RAM 2 GB away, that also doesn't make
| the list any longer. I just don't know how long that list
| is; the book didn't say. And that's as close as I've come
| to understanding Resources.
|
| Yes, I love these explanations. /Generally/ speaking, I have
| found that if you read something incomprehensible over again, it
| makes a little more sense every time - I found this with
| literature as well as technical stuff. So If I read the above 5
| times I( would probably understand it.

Better to read it in the book. Right, multiple readings are required!

| Windows 3.1x had four 16-bit heaps, three for the User
| resource & one for the GDI (Graphic Device Interface).
| These could only address 64K each or 256K in total, "to
| store the objects used in the user interface and displayed
| on your screen". In Windows 95/98 the three User heaps have
| been combined to one 32-bit heap, capable of addressing 2GB
| of RAM. Because some 3.1x applications managed resources
| lists directly, instead of through APIs (application
| program interfaces), Microsoft retained the 16-bit GDI
| heap. But some of the elements in it were moved to the
| 32-bit heap. Then follows a table of ten Resources elements
| and the limits to them in Windows 3.1x compared to Windows
| 95/98. I see no contradiction to Livingston/Straub in the
| article "Core System Components", on the Windows 98
| Resource Kit.
|
| Where's my Advil bottle...

Understandable. Sounds like only the GDI Resources face a 64K limitation
now. However, the heap or list that comprises the User Resources,
although it can address more RAM for its "elements"-- still has a size
issue. When space runs out for entries in the list (pointers to the
elements)-- one is out of resources!

| Thanks again!
| t.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR



  #26  
Old January 10th 09, 03:10 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance
PCR
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 4,396
Default Strange loss of system resources

thanatoid wrote:
| "PCR" wrote in
| :
|
| Top-posted intro:
| WOW... Thanks for such a comprehensive reply. Really nice of
| you.

You are welcome.

| thanatoid wrote:
|| Hi gang.
||
|| Something a little strange is happening.
||
|| I am running 98SELite on a 2GHz machine with 1GB of RAM. I
|| have the following lines in system.ini and everything runs
|| fine (but... see later):
||
|| [vcache]
|| MinFileCache=0
|| MaxFileCache=524288
|
| That should be fine.
|
|| (another section)
|| MinPagingFileSize=204800
|| MaxPagingFileSize=204800
|
| Setting a max size for the swap file could get you in deep
| trouble with certain MVPs! Better not let Harper see this
| in particular! However, I doubt it affects resources.
|
| No, it doesn't, I was just describing the sys setup. The damn
| resources have 64K and that's that. And apparently NO program
| (except Ctl-Alt-Del) to free them up. SIGH.

Closing a program with Ctrl-Alt-Del won't necessarily free resources,
because the program may not do its housekeeping regarding the resource
heaps that way. The program needs to tell the system that heap space has
been freed. If a program has hung & cannot be closed normally, possibly
TaskInfo 2000 will get it to close in an orderly manner. I know
EndItAll2 will first send a close request to a hung program. If it still
fails to close, then it will be killed the way Ctrl-Alt-Del kills them.

|| (I haven't used ANY of the swap file since I put in the
|| 1GB RAM
|
| If the swap file isn't being used very often, consider...
|
| "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1"
| ...in System.ini, [386.Enh] Section.
|
| I have that line in there but I didn't think it was worth
| mentioning. I don't know if THAT accounts for the swap file not
| being used at all, or whether it's the 1GB of RAM, but whatever.

The more RAM, the less chance there will be a need to use the swap file.
Looks like "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" is meant to revert to Win95
determinations as to when to write to the swap file...

• INFO: The Windows 98 PageFile_Call_Async_Manager Service
(223294) - If this entry is absent from System.ini, the default setting
for ConservativeSwapfileUsage is 1 for Windows 95, and 0 (zero) for
Windows 98. When Windows 98 performs asynchronous ...
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/223294

• 125 tips for Windows 98
(835834) - ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1. This could reduce the amount of
disk swapping Windows does, and so speed up your system..
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/835834

| But I'm not sure it has anything to do with resources. And
| I can't quite recall what it is supposed to do! Maybe it
| reverts swap file handling back to Win95 methods, which I
| think spent less time anticipating the size to make the
| swap file. This is probably what you want to do-- instead
| of setting the max/min to the same number!
|
| I don't know. I've had the swap file set to min=max, about 2.5
| (this time it's just 200MB since nothing ever uses it anyway :-)
| , ever since 1998 or so. Hard to get rid of some habits.

It has been said, in a rare circumstance-- you could have a horrible
crash that way! That's why I discontinued the practice, myself-- though
it actually is suggested in Windows 98 Secrets (Livingston/Straub),
pp.1041-1042! It says to defrag the drive first for contiguous space.
Then, set both the max & min to same size of 2.5 x installed RAM. That
was nearly 1 GB for me! This is meant to reduce certain swap file
processing activity-- which I guess is re-sizing decision making.

| And EVERYBODY having a different opinion on the RIGHT way to set
| it up doesn't help either!

Maybe try the easily reversible experiments Buffalo has suggested.

|| Here's the weirdness:
||
|| I seem to be running out of system resources all the time
|| and quite rapidly - much more so than when I still had
|| just 256 MB of RAM. After about ½ hr on the web, I get to
|| about 20% on the 1st and 3rd resource and sometimes I have
|| to reboot a few minutes later.
|
| Does it happen just by connecting to the WEB (i.e., you've
| clicked your connectoid, thanatoid)-- or do you have to do
| something like NG activity, browsing, or downloading?
| Maybe...
|
| No, only the web, which is why after "sleeping" on it I have
| decided that it must be the Opera and FFox browsers... See my
| reply to Franc for more musings on browsers...

It could still be worthwhile to play with swap file & disk cache
settings, because they may have an effect on your browser's doings.
Also, check the size of your TIF storage area-- maybe make it larger or
even smaller.

| Do you have "System Monitor" in START... System Tools? If
| not, get it from "START, Settings, Control Panel,
| Add/Remove Programs, Windows Setup tab, D-Clk System Tools,
| check System Monitor, OK, Apply, OK". May as well take
| "Resource Meter", too. Now, go through the menus and at
| least have it display
|
| (a) Swap file in use.
| (b) Swap file size.
| (c) Swappable memory.
| (d) Unused physical memory.
| (e) Allocated memory.
| (f) Disk cache size.
| (g) Locked memory
| (h) Other memory
| (i) Kernel Processor Usage
| (j) Kernel Threads
|
| Keep an eye especially on Swap File in Use & Disk Cache
| Size before/after the problem begins.
|
| I feel /terrible/ saying this after you went to so much trouble
| describing the procedure, but I don't think I can muster up the
| patience to go through such a process. Also, I have played with
| System Monitor and I find it 50% mystifying and 50% annoying. I
| just LOVE it when you click the ? on "page discards" and it
| tells you "shows page discards", or something. How f*g helpful.
|
| So I have basically decided to forget about its existence.

That was basically all written long ago, not just now. I suspect disk
cache involvement in the resources problem. I know mine grows very large
when I get a resources crash over a different matter.

| SNIP
|
| Here is what I always post about resources...
|
| Generally, if you've got any Resources at all, you've got
| enough (said Harper or Martell). This is because it won't
| blow, until Resources are zero. Then, you get an out of
| memory error (no matter how much RAM you've got).
|
| Yes, I sort of knew that and I read more about it as well.
| I have one of many technicians' favorite tools, a RAM MANAGER!!!
|
| The one I use on this machine is FreeRAM XP Pro 1.40. It's free,
| and works on 9x-XP. (Maybe Vista, although WHO CARES ;-)
|
| Leaving aside the endless discussion of whether its basic
| functionality is of /any/ use to anyone whatsoever, it does have
| ONE feature which I think /anyone/ will agree is useful... You
| can set it to warn you when the damn System Resources fall below
| a certain percentage. In fact, that's the only reason I know
| that's what's been happening, other than system fonts all over
| the screen and no icons within the Alt-Tab switching...

Resource Meter puts up a warning of its own. Unfortunately, sometimes
that warning is hidden under another window! But its icon in the Tray
also will turn red-- if only one can remember to look at it once in a
while!

| Perhaps put Resource Meter in your Tray, to see how low
| they get. A reboot would clear it, but, obviously, it's
| better to cleanup your Startup Group. Do you have "Resource
| Meter" in START... System Tools? If not, get it from
| "START, Settings, Control Panel, Add/Remove Programs,
| Windows Setup tab, D-Clk System Tools, check System
| Resource Meter, OK, Apply, OK". May as well take "System
| Monitor", too.
|
| Aarggh! ;-)
|
| Right now FreeRAM XP is telling me I have 65%, 65%, and 77%. Not
| bad. I have XNews running, Firefox is loaded but I haven't
| gotten around to going to a site with it yet (trying to find the
| link as I write this!). Not bad.

Those are respectable figures. That 1st figure -- system resources -- is
always set to the lower of the other two. It has no separate meaning of
its own. My own figures right now are 50% System, 50% User, 70% GDI. I'm
online in this NG & have done some browsing.

| (A little later, I have 2 FFox windows open in addition to
| above, and I am at 56%, 56%, 69%. Still not bad. There were NO
| images to speak of on any of the pages I have gone through.)

Keep it up. Check those resources after going to each of your favorite
sites. Do they increase after closing a site? Try closing the browser
too to see whether it will free them.

| The meter will show three figures: System, User & GDI.
| System is set to the lower of the others. GDI, I take to be
| the province of one's Display Adapter & out of one's
| control, except by prayer maybe. I know my GDI resources
| went up after switching to an LSD
|
| ahem...

Yikes! I only did that once-- & I didn't like it!

| monitor.
|
| Very interesting,. Another argument for my arsenal of anti-LCD
| monitor information.

No-- I have more GDI resources with this LCD monitor than I had with its
non-LCD predecessors!

| Then again, everybody uses XP and Vista, so...
|
| User Resources
| can be controlled by limiting the number of programs
| running.
|
| http://www.pcmag.com/ 's StartUpCop has "undo", and it is
| more than a combination of "START, Run, MSInfo32, Software
| Environment, Startup Programs" and "START, Run, MSConfig,
| Startup tab". It can even do a permanent delete from the
| Startup Group. This is configurable, and one may maintain
| multiple configurations of items to include in the Group.
|
| I use IARSN's TaskInfo 2000, and have been for years. The
| freeware version is better than the paid version! Anyway, it's
| great at showing RAM used and dozens of other things, and it
| will also kill programs that don't show up or won't die with
| TaskManager.
|
| For startup, I have StartUp Changer 2000, and my startup is VERY
| conservative. After a boot up, doing nothing, I have 80-90& (I
| forget exactly) in all 3 Sys Resources.

That's good, then. Yea, like me.

| Resources are starting to make me as crazy as TIFs now. I
| don't fully understand it, my book ("Windows 98 Secrets"
| [Livingston/Straub]), pp.1126-1127, says, Resources are
| lists (aka heaps). "The lists point to areas of memory
| where user interface elements (and other items) are stored
| -- things like dialog boxes, windows, and so on." From
| that, I divine these are lists of POINTERS to locations in
| RAM. These lists have a maximum size, and when they are
| used up, your resources are gone. Windows generates an out
| of memory message upon the next request that needs space in
| a list. Even if you have plenty of RAM, the list won't get
| any longer. Even though each entry in the 32-bit heap can
| address an area of RAM 2 GB away, that also doesn't make
| the list any longer. I just don't know how long that list
| is; the book didn't say. And that's as close as I've come
| to understanding Resources.
|
| Yes, I love these explanations. /Generally/ speaking, I have
| found that if you read something incomprehensible over again, it
| makes a little more sense every time - I found this with
| literature as well as technical stuff. So If I read the above 5
| times I( would probably understand it.

Better to read it in the book. Right, multiple readings are required!

| Windows 3.1x had four 16-bit heaps, three for the User
| resource & one for the GDI (Graphic Device Interface).
| These could only address 64K each or 256K in total, "to
| store the objects used in the user interface and displayed
| on your screen". In Windows 95/98 the three User heaps have
| been combined to one 32-bit heap, capable of addressing 2GB
| of RAM. Because some 3.1x applications managed resources
| lists directly, instead of through APIs (application
| program interfaces), Microsoft retained the 16-bit GDI
| heap. But some of the elements in it were moved to the
| 32-bit heap. Then follows a table of ten Resources elements
| and the limits to them in Windows 3.1x compared to Windows
| 95/98. I see no contradiction to Livingston/Straub in the
| article "Core System Components", on the Windows 98
| Resource Kit.
|
| Where's my Advil bottle...

Understandable. Sounds like only the GDI Resources face a 64K limitation
now. However, the heap or list that comprises the User Resources,
although it can address more RAM for its "elements"-- still has a size
issue. When space runs out for entries in the list (pointers to the
elements)-- one is out of resources!

| Thanks again!
| t.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR



  #27  
Old January 10th 09, 05:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance
Etal
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 134
Default Strange loss of system resources

thanatoid wrote:

I really dislike some of the FFox "features" (or lack of them)
but OTOH, Opera 8.01 doesn't have "save page with images" as
7.23 did! In fact I tried 7.54 as well and IT was VERY different
from 7.23 as well. I find it really peculiar that they change
the appearance and options and functionality so much... Some day
I might try 5.12... When it's a slow day... But next time I do
an Acronis restore, I think I'll reinstall 7.23. As much as I
/really/ hate having THREE browsers when ONE should be enough,
FFox does swf/flv very nicely. But its structural/directory
design is MOST unpleasant.

And the fact you have to use THE MOUSE to go back or forward is
just ///unbelievable///.


If the last sentence is about Firefox 2.0.0.x, try
[Alt]+[LeftArrow] and [Alt]+[RightArrow].

--
Nah-ah. I'm staying out of this. ... Now, here's my opinion.

Please followup in the newsgroup.
E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.
  #28  
Old January 10th 09, 05:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance
Etal
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 134
Default Strange loss of system resources

thanatoid wrote:

I really dislike some of the FFox "features" (or lack of them)
but OTOH, Opera 8.01 doesn't have "save page with images" as
7.23 did! In fact I tried 7.54 as well and IT was VERY different
from 7.23 as well. I find it really peculiar that they change
the appearance and options and functionality so much... Some day
I might try 5.12... When it's a slow day... But next time I do
an Acronis restore, I think I'll reinstall 7.23. As much as I
/really/ hate having THREE browsers when ONE should be enough,
FFox does swf/flv very nicely. But its structural/directory
design is MOST unpleasant.

And the fact you have to use THE MOUSE to go back or forward is
just ///unbelievable///.


If the last sentence is about Firefox 2.0.0.x, try
[Alt]+[LeftArrow] and [Alt]+[RightArrow].

--
Nah-ah. I'm staying out of this. ... Now, here's my opinion.

Please followup in the newsgroup.
E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.
  #29  
Old January 10th 09, 08:19 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance
Franc Zabkar
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,702
Default Strange loss of system resources

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:52:13 +0100, Etal
put finger to keyboard and composed:

thanatoid wrote:

I really dislike some of the FFox "features" (or lack of them)
but OTOH, Opera 8.01 doesn't have "save page with images" as
7.23 did! In fact I tried 7.54 as well and IT was VERY different
from 7.23 as well. I find it really peculiar that they change
the appearance and options and functionality so much... Some day
I might try 5.12... When it's a slow day... But next time I do
an Acronis restore, I think I'll reinstall 7.23. As much as I
/really/ hate having THREE browsers when ONE should be enough,
FFox does swf/flv very nicely. But its structural/directory
design is MOST unpleasant.

And the fact you have to use THE MOUSE to go back or forward is
just ///unbelievable///.


If the last sentence is about Firefox 2.0.0.x, try
[Alt]+[LeftArrow] and [Alt]+[RightArrow].


Opera has the same shortcut keys:
http://www.opera.com/browser/tutorials/nomouse/

"Z and Alt+Left go back in history. X and Alt+Right go forward."

Furthermore, it is actually easier in Opera to do this with the mouse.
To go back, hold down the right button on your mouse and then press
the left button. To go forward, hold down the left button and then
press the right button.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
  #30  
Old January 10th 09, 08:19 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance
Franc Zabkar
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,702
Default Strange loss of system resources

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:52:13 +0100, Etal
put finger to keyboard and composed:

thanatoid wrote:

I really dislike some of the FFox "features" (or lack of them)
but OTOH, Opera 8.01 doesn't have "save page with images" as
7.23 did! In fact I tried 7.54 as well and IT was VERY different
from 7.23 as well. I find it really peculiar that they change
the appearance and options and functionality so much... Some day
I might try 5.12... When it's a slow day... But next time I do
an Acronis restore, I think I'll reinstall 7.23. As much as I
/really/ hate having THREE browsers when ONE should be enough,
FFox does swf/flv very nicely. But its structural/directory
design is MOST unpleasant.

And the fact you have to use THE MOUSE to go back or forward is
just ///unbelievable///.


If the last sentence is about Firefox 2.0.0.x, try
[Alt]+[LeftArrow] and [Alt]+[RightArrow].


Opera has the same shortcut keys:
http://www.opera.com/browser/tutorials/nomouse/

"Z and Alt+Left go back in history. X and Alt+Right go forward."

Furthermore, it is actually easier in Opera to do this with the mouse.
To go back, hold down the right button on your mouse and then press
the left button. To go forward, hold down the left button and then
press the right button.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Strange loss of system resources thanatoid General 62 January 13th 09 06:23 AM
Loss of system fonts Fred Setup & Installation 6 January 12th 06 04:48 AM
Loss of resources Chas General 3 December 6th 04 12:22 AM
low system memory and low system resources pamela Setup & Installation 1 June 27th 04 05:47 AM
System Resources April General 8 June 27th 04 12:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.