System Resources versus RAM

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

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).

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).

Larry 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.

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

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).

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).

Larry 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.

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

"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?

"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?

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?

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?

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.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"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

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.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"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

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