Strange loss of system resources

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

(another section)
MinPagingFileSize=204800
MaxPagingFileSize=204800

(I haven't used ANY of the swap file since I put in the 1GB RAM
:-)

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.

I use Opera and I have started using FireFox 2.0.0.18 because
Opera crashes a lot with the stupid SWF plugin, although I still
prefer its features and I am very accustomed to it.

If I stay off the web, no problem with sys resources.

Does anyone have any idea WHY this has started happening and
what I can do to fix it?
Any help would be most appreciated, as usual.

t.

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

(another section)
MinPagingFileSize=204800
MaxPagingFileSize=204800

(I haven't used ANY of the swap file since I put in the 1GB RAM
:-)

Here's the weirdness:

Do some more Googling. System Resources is not dependent on the amount of
ram.
Hopefully you will find which system or progream is using up your System
Resources.
Even desktop icons use System Resources.

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.

I use Opera and I have started using FireFox 2.0.0.18 because
Opera crashes a lot with the stupid SWF plugin, although I still
prefer its features and I am very accustomed to it.

If I stay off the web, no problem with sys resources.

Does anyone have any idea WHY this has started happening and
what I can do to fix it?
Any help would be most appreciated, as usual.

t.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:28:37 +0800, puzzled wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:05:17 -0700, "Buffalo" wrote:

Even desktop icons use System Resources.

Any idea how much? My desktop is almost completely filled with icons (just
counted - 122 - don't ask!).

I am pretty confused by all this and probably know less each year now
than the year before, for the last few years. But....

First, IIRC the amount for system resources is suprisingly little,
even for the average RAM in 1998.

Second, I thought it used 1K for each icon, but maybe that rounds up
to a whoto a full sector for each. Maybe not.

Anyhow, my suggestion is to rename Desktop where it appears in Windows
Explorer, like to Desktop2, and then create a new empty desktop. I
guess it won't stay empty because those first 4 or so icons will be
there automatically I think, but then see how it runs.

I'll admit it was win3.1, but I had problems because of too many
icons.


Also what I did in win98, was create folders to hold my everyday
icons, and two more folders to hold other ones. For View, I used
large icons, or whatever they call it, like the Control Panel usually
is. One folder was just for infrequent internet stuff. Another for
utilities, etc.. Then I put icons in each folder to point to the
other two. You can make an icon for a specific folder very easily.
Then in the start-up group, among the other programs that run at
start-up, I put another icon (are they called shotcuts?) representing
my everyday folder. This way I had almost nothing in my desktop, but
I suppose it is no more efficient to have 10 icons in a desktop than
to have ten in the everyday folder.

The big advantage were that I only opened one of the other two folders
when I needed something,

and that, even though I run every program that will do it maximized,
I don't have to click on desktop to see the desktop underneath. I
don't have to use my mouse at all, and I rarely use the desktop. I
use these the everyday folder, and once in a while the other two. I
use alt-tab to go from one program to another, and this will also go
to open folders. It made it more like win3.1 also.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:28:37 +0800, puzzled wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:05:17 -0700, "Buffalo" wrote:

Even desktop icons use System Resources.

Any idea how much? My desktop is almost completely filled with icons (just
counted - 122 - don't ask!).

I am pretty confused by all this and probably know less each year now
than the year before, for the last few years. But....

First, IIRC the amount for system resources is suprisingly little,
even for the average RAM in 1998.

Second, I thought it used 1K for each icon, but maybe that rounds up
to a whoto a full sector for each. Maybe not.

Anyhow, my suggestion is to rename Desktop where it appears in Windows
Explorer, like to Desktop2, and then create a new empty desktop. I
guess it won't stay empty because those first 4 or so icons will be
there automatically I think, but then see how it runs.

I'll admit it was win3.1, but I had problems because of too many
icons.


Also what I did in win98, was create folders to hold my everyday
icons, and two more folders to hold other ones. For View, I used
large icons, or whatever they call it, like the Control Panel usually
is. One folder was just for infrequent internet stuff. Another for
utilities, etc.. Then I put icons in each folder to point to the
other two. You can make an icon for a specific folder very easily.
Then in the start-up group, among the other programs that run at
start-up, I put another icon (are they called shotcuts?) representing
my everyday folder. This way I had almost nothing in my desktop, but
I suppose it is no more efficient to have 10 icons in a desktop than
to have ten in the everyday folder.

The big advantage were that I only opened one of the other two folders
when I needed something,

and that, even though I run every program that will do it maximized,
I don't have to click on desktop to see the desktop underneath. I
don't have to use my mouse at all, and I rarely use the desktop. I
use these the everyday folder, and once in a while the other two. I
use alt-tab to go from one program to another, and this will also go
to open folders. It made it more like win3.1 also.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:05:17 -0700, "Buffalo" wrote:

Even desktop icons use System Resources.

Any idea how much? My desktop is almost completely filled with icons (just
counted - 122 - don't ask!).

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:05:17 -0700, "Buffalo" wrote:

Even desktop icons use System Resources.

Any idea how much? My desktop is almost completely filled with icons (just
counted - 122 - don't ask!).

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:15:37 -0500, mm
wrote:


Anyhow, my suggestion is to rename Desktop where it appears in Windows
Explorer, like to Desktop2, and then create a new empty desktop. I
guess it won't stay empty because those first 4 or so icons will be
there automatically I think, but then see how it runs.

Oh, yeah, you probably have to do this in DOS before Windows starts.
I doubt it will let you rename Desktop when windows is running,
although you can get the full file name then.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:15:37 -0500, mm
wrote:


Anyhow, my suggestion is to rename Desktop where it appears in Windows
Explorer, like to Desktop2, and then create a new empty desktop. I
guess it won't stay empty because those first 4 or so icons will be
there automatically I think, but then see how it runs.

Oh, yeah, you probably have to do this in DOS before Windows starts.
I doubt it will let you rename Desktop when windows is running,
although you can get the full file name then.

"Buffalo" wrote in
:

SNIP

Do some more Googling. System Resources is not dependent on
the amount of ram.

I am aware of that. I just gave what I thought was pertinent
info - it did NOT happen when I has 256 MB. You /never/ know.

Hopefully you will find which system or progream is using
up your System Resources.

I am not running ANYTHING while on the web that I am not running
while NOT on the web (ie I do not have a virus scanner
permanently on, etc. - and my firewall uses SO little resources
that it's always on even when NOT on the net.

Even desktop icons use System Resources.

Yes, I know that too, and yesterday I switched them all off
hoping it would help as I was just about to finsih a large DL.
It may or may not have helped but I managed to finish the DL,
albeit with 'system' fonts on the screen.

Anyway, I certainly appreciate you being the only person in the
group to address my question so far (instead of hijacking the
thread ;-[ )- even though it simply seems that for some stupid
reason browsers use a lot of system resources. WHY they use more
NOW than before I don't know.

I guess that is ONE advantage I will give XP - supposedly this
system resources thing was worked out in it. Supposedly.

Thanks,
t.

"Buffalo" wrote in
:

SNIP

Do some more Googling. System Resources is not dependent on
the amount of ram.

I am aware of that. I just gave what I thought was pertinent
info - it did NOT happen when I has 256 MB. You /never/ know.

Hopefully you will find which system or progream is using
up your System Resources.

I am not running ANYTHING while on the web that I am not running
while NOT on the web (ie I do not have a virus scanner
permanently on, etc. - and my firewall uses SO little resources
that it's always on even when NOT on the net.

Even desktop icons use System Resources.

Yes, I know that too, and yesterday I switched them all off
hoping it would help as I was just about to finsih a large DL.
It may or may not have helped but I managed to finish the DL,
albeit with 'system' fonts on the screen.

Anyway, I certainly appreciate you being the only person in the
group to address my question so far (instead of hijacking the
thread ;-[ )- even though it simply seems that for some stupid
reason browsers use a lot of system resources. WHY they use more
NOW than before I don't know.

I guess that is ONE advantage I will give XP - supposedly this
system resources thing was worked out in it. Supposedly.

Thanks,
t.