Max performace settings (swap/cache) with 256/512 mb ram?

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).

"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.

"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.

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).

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).

FACE wrote in
:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:55:23 -0800, Fuzzy Logic
in microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

FACE wrote in
m:

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.

I use a freeware program called QuickResource that will warn you, before
it's too late, that your resources are getting low.

http://am-productions.yi.org/getprod...=QuickResource

I have set the alarm level at 20% free and that seems to stop me from
getting into much trouble.

Thanks I run Taskinfo 2003 which does a similar thing, but I have it
set to 10%. The problem is that program has about 8 graphs and displays
constantly updated and THAT takes GDI/User. :-)

I used to use FreeMeter http://www.tiler.com/freemeter/ which also could
monitor all sorts of things. I switched to QuickResource because it has a
very small resource footprint and does only one thing. Also I would
recommend a higher setting that 10% as things start to get iffy when your
resources are that low. Try 20% and you will likely run into less problems.

FACE wrote in
:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:55:23 -0800, Fuzzy Logic
in microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

FACE wrote in
m:

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.

I use a freeware program called QuickResource that will warn you, before
it's too late, that your resources are getting low.

http://am-productions.yi.org/getprod...=QuickResource

I have set the alarm level at 20% free and that seems to stop me from
getting into much trouble.

Thanks I run Taskinfo 2003 which does a similar thing, but I have it
set to 10%. The problem is that program has about 8 graphs and displays
constantly updated and THAT takes GDI/User. :-)

I used to use FreeMeter http://www.tiler.com/freemeter/ which also could
monitor all sorts of things. I switched to QuickResource because it has a
very small resource footprint and does only one thing. Also I would
recommend a higher setting that 10% as things start to get iffy when your
resources are that low. Try 20% and you will likely run into less problems.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:06:18 -0800, Fuzzy Logic in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

Thanks I run Taskinfo 2003 which does a similar thing, but I have it
set to 10%. The problem is that program has about 8 graphs and displays
constantly updated and THAT takes GDI/User. :-)

I used to use FreeMeter http://www.tiler.com/freemeter/ which also could
monitor all sorts of things. I switched to QuickResource because it has a
very small resource footprint and does only one thing. Also I would
recommend a higher setting that 10% as things start to get iffy when your
resources are that low. Try 20% and you will likely run into less problems.

Thanks for the URL. Hopefully in a week or so i will not be as concerned
about system resources though. :-)

I have kept that URL just in case I change my mind though.


FACE

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:06:18 -0800, Fuzzy Logic in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

Thanks I run Taskinfo 2003 which does a similar thing, but I have it
set to 10%. The problem is that program has about 8 graphs and displays
constantly updated and THAT takes GDI/User. :-)

I used to use FreeMeter http://www.tiler.com/freemeter/ which also could
monitor all sorts of things. I switched to QuickResource because it has a
very small resource footprint and does only one thing. Also I would
recommend a higher setting that 10% as things start to get iffy when your
resources are that low. Try 20% and you will likely run into less problems.

Thanks for the URL. Hopefully in a week or so i will not be as concerned
about system resources though. :-)

I have kept that URL just in case I change my mind though.


FACE

"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).