System Resources versus RAM

"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?

If you want to talk about 'available RAM' you need to
specify want you expect it to be available for.

I guess a value presented to the user in filemanagers aboutdialogbox
could be how much free ram there is, when no swap is used
(IMHO windows should allways be set to conservative swap use
so it doesn't start using it before it have to), perhaps counting
the diskcache as free memory.

that would be a number telling how much free memory there is to use
without having to swap out anything or letting parts of programs
go out that later must be read back to memory from their programfiles.

(perhaps most interesting if you want to load data,
perhaps a 3dsmax model, where all of it have to be used
to render it?)

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

you will! ther will countless of resource-threads that
will haunt you forever and ever again! mohahahahahaaa... ;-)

(or you mean amount free ram things?)

btw, about the versus-thing: since both 64KB resource areas
are stolen from the rest of the memory when Windows start
it doesn't interact with amount free memory later on.
Just as little as the windows kernel code itself and other stuff
that consume fixed amount of ram from start of windows till
turn off....


I wonder how much Windows (say 98se) is consuming by itself
if nothing is loaded at all? no applications, no shell,
no uhh.. drivers, no nothing hmm...
Not very usefull or possible perhaps but anyway :-D

If you want to talk about 'available RAM' you need to
specify want you expect it to be available for.

I guess a value presented to the user in filemanagers aboutdialogbox
could be how much free ram there is, when no swap is used
(IMHO windows should allways be set to conservative swap use
so it doesn't start using it before it have to), perhaps counting
the diskcache as free memory.

that would be a number telling how much free memory there is to use
without having to swap out anything or letting parts of programs
go out that later must be read back to memory from their programfiles.

(perhaps most interesting if you want to load data,
perhaps a 3dsmax model, where all of it have to be used
to render it?)

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

you will! ther will countless of resource-threads that
will haunt you forever and ever again! mohahahahahaaa... ;-)

(or you mean amount free ram things?)

btw, about the versus-thing: since both 64KB resource areas
are stolen from the rest of the memory when Windows start
it doesn't interact with amount free memory later on.
Just as little as the windows kernel code itself and other stuff
that consume fixed amount of ram from start of windows till
turn off....


I wonder how much Windows (say 98se) is consuming by itself
if nothing is loaded at all? no applications, no shell,
no uhh.. drivers, no nothing hmm...
Not very usefull or possible perhaps but anyway :-D

teebo wrote in newsp.uvjmu7fabr8ivg@300pl:

SNIP

btw, about the versus-thing: since both 64KB resource areas
are stolen from the rest of the memory when Windows start
it doesn't interact with amount free memory later on.
Just as little as the windows kernel code itself and other
stuff that consume fixed amount of ram from start of
windows till turn off....


I wonder how much Windows (say 98se) is consuming by itself
if nothing is loaded at all? no applications, no shell,
no uhh.. drivers, no nothing hmm...
Not very usefull or possible perhaps but anyway :-D

You bring up some interesting discussion points but I'm just too
tired.
Cheers.



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

teebo wrote in newsp.uvjmu7fabr8ivg@300pl:

SNIP

btw, about the versus-thing: since both 64KB resource areas
are stolen from the rest of the memory when Windows start
it doesn't interact with amount free memory later on.
Just as little as the windows kernel code itself and other
stuff that consume fixed amount of ram from start of
windows till turn off....


I wonder how much Windows (say 98se) is consuming by itself
if nothing is loaded at all? no applications, no shell,
no uhh.. drivers, no nothing hmm...
Not very usefull or possible perhaps but anyway :-D

You bring up some interesting discussion points but I'm just too
tired.
Cheers.



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

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

See if this helps explain it to a better understanding for you.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/98_gen_help.htm

--

Brian A. Sesko
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

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

See if this helps explain it to a better understanding for you.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/98_gen_help.htm

--

Brian A. Sesko
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

thanatoid wrote:
[]
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/.
[]
(As Bill has said in a later post, these bits of RAM _do_ use part of main
RAM.)

To digress briefly: there are at least two sorts of RAM that _can be_ on the
MB - cache and video. (Some BIOSes do have a little - battery-backed - RAM,
but we're talking of Ks or less here. I think more modern ones use
non-volatile.)

Cache, for storing instructions/data that the processor is using frequently
(usually faster than main RAM - sometimes static rather than dynamic): comes
in various levels, none or more of which may be present. On really ancient
systems, the only cache (if any) - called level 1 cache - was some chips on
the MB; later processors had some RAM inside the processor chip itself,
though mobos still sometimes provided some RAM that was faster than the main
RAM (known as level 2 cache). I think even level 3 RAM isn't unknown these
days. The amount (or even existence) of on-processor RAM was one of the
things that differentiated processors of otherwise the same speed - for
example, most Celerons had (probably still have, if Intel still use that
name for their cheaper processors) less cache than their full-blooded
brothers. The third-party processor manufacturers (not so much AMD, the
other also-rans) often skipped on the cache too.

Video RAM: quite rare. These days, either there is a separate video card
with its own RAM, or, if the mobo has on-board video circuitry, it uses part
of the main RAM, which is a performance hit: not so much that it takes some
of the main RAM (what's a few Megs when you've got hundreds, or a few
hundred when you've got Gigs - adjust to suit), but that the bus(es) via
which the main RAM is accessed have to be shared between the processor and
the RAM circuitry. _Some_ mobos with on-board video used to come with
separate, dedicated, RAM chips for the video circuitry; those were as good
as a separate graphics card (well in effect they were one), in fact better
in some ways; obviously not upgradable though. I haven't heard of any such
for some while though - I think these days it is assumed that if you want
on-board video, you're after a budget system and will take the hit.

Sorry, I've wandered off to matter of system resources - just thought people
might find some of it interesting; it was prompted by the above wonder
whether there is special memory on the mobo somewhere.
--
J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

thanatoid wrote:
[]
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/.
[]
(As Bill has said in a later post, these bits of RAM _do_ use part of main
RAM.)

To digress briefly: there are at least two sorts of RAM that _can be_ on the
MB - cache and video. (Some BIOSes do have a little - battery-backed - RAM,
but we're talking of Ks or less here. I think more modern ones use
non-volatile.)

Cache, for storing instructions/data that the processor is using frequently
(usually faster than main RAM - sometimes static rather than dynamic): comes
in various levels, none or more of which may be present. On really ancient
systems, the only cache (if any) - called level 1 cache - was some chips on
the MB; later processors had some RAM inside the processor chip itself,
though mobos still sometimes provided some RAM that was faster than the main
RAM (known as level 2 cache). I think even level 3 RAM isn't unknown these
days. The amount (or even existence) of on-processor RAM was one of the
things that differentiated processors of otherwise the same speed - for
example, most Celerons had (probably still have, if Intel still use that
name for their cheaper processors) less cache than their full-blooded
brothers. The third-party processor manufacturers (not so much AMD, the
other also-rans) often skipped on the cache too.

Video RAM: quite rare. These days, either there is a separate video card
with its own RAM, or, if the mobo has on-board video circuitry, it uses part
of the main RAM, which is a performance hit: not so much that it takes some
of the main RAM (what's a few Megs when you've got hundreds, or a few
hundred when you've got Gigs - adjust to suit), but that the bus(es) via
which the main RAM is accessed have to be shared between the processor and
the RAM circuitry. _Some_ mobos with on-board video used to come with
separate, dedicated, RAM chips for the video circuitry; those were as good
as a separate graphics card (well in effect they were one), in fact better
in some ways; obviously not upgradable though. I haven't heard of any such
for some while though - I think these days it is assumed that if you want
on-board video, you're after a budget system and will take the hit.

Sorry, I've wandered off to matter of system resources - just thought people
might find some of it interesting; it was prompted by the above wonder
whether there is special memory on the mobo somewhere.
--
J. P. Gilliver | Tel. +44 1634 203298

teebo wrote:
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)

That sounds just about right, uh-huh.

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?)

Some applications manage the heaps (lists of pointers to memory
addresses) directly, & what you say would apply. Other applications
simply request for space in the heaps from Windows, which is better.
Windows will then, if necessary, put up a message that resources are
low/empty & suggest one close applications to free them. Here is my full
understanding...

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.

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.

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

That's right.

The reason USER and GDI areas are 64KB is because the
applications use 16bit pointers to use them, and 2^16 is 64K.

It doesn't say in that book (on those pages, anyhow-- but the book needs
a defrag!) how big the heaps are, just... "The lengths of the lists
under Windows 3.1x were quite small. The lists can be much longer with
Windows 98."

But is sadly true there is a fixed size for the heaps-- & nothing can
make them larger in Windows 98 or earlier.

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.

It was good of XP to eliminate resource problems. Win98 wanted to be
compatible with Win3.1x.

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)

That's right. Because the heaps are alterable by Windows or any running
application at any time, they are not candidates for swapping. They
would come back without the knowledge of what has been done.

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) ?

The data they point to cannot be further than 2 GB away, because a 32
bit address can't specify further. The book didn't say how far away the
heaps themselves are.

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

I never saw those black icons people speak of. But I doubt it would be
much longer after that that Windows would crash, if applications aren't
shut-- just the same as running out of User resources.


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