Herbert Palm
Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:31:25 -0700
http://aumha.org/win4/a/resource.php and http://www.mytechsupport.ca/support/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2938The gist of what you will read there is that due to its resource limitations of just 64K of memory resources each for anything of a graphical nature (GDI - Graphical Device Interface) and User Resources (used by applications as opened) are limited "Heaps", yes, that is what they are called, and CANNOT BE INCREASED IN SIZE, regardless how much RAM you have installed in the computer. Their size is limited due to backwards compatibility with older 16 bit programs.
Anne Hollingshead wrote:
Running Legacy 6 on a Windows 98(SE) computer can be done provided you don't stress the system! There may be other Legacy 6 scenarios that will crash Legacy outright.I kept WIN 98 because it had taken me so long to get used to it.
Last night I went all the way through the process to View a Descendency Report. As each of several windows opened the GDI resources took a small hit decreasing to a mere 33% of available resources.
If you have other applications already open or open them AFTER loading Legacy 6 you can expect a Run Time Error when the GDI resources literally decrease to 1%. That's what happened when I opened my word processor after the Despondency Report was on the screen. Loading the word processor first crashed Legacy6 - Run Time Error - about 3/4 way though opening up windows toward viewing the Descendency Report.
At no time was there ever a concern with other system resources such as User Resources, main memory used by the kernel, etc. It was the lack of GDI resources that crashed Legacy 6.
Note: Good old Norton "System Information" provided the resource percentages.
Probably YES. Windows XP, based on the NT kernel, doesn't have the 64K heap limitation.What would I need to change to get LEGACY 6 to work ?
No. More memory wouldn't help a Windows 98(SE) system. (Remember, the 64K limitation cannot be overcome.)Would more memory be enough ?/
The computer I used for the above test and results was on a Pentium II, 350MHZ processor with 256M of RAM. Sure, a faster processor would have speeded thing up but would NOT solve the resources limitations.
From technical writings I learned that Windows 98SE could actually slow down with more than 384 MEGs of RAM, so the optimum number is 256MEGs since 384 is not an attainable number due to RAM chip configurations.
Computer speed is actually a direct result to processor speed. After a computer uses up installed RAM, the dynamic swap file on the hard disk is used as sort of an extension of real memory. Using the swap file for writing bits and bytes is slower than writing to real RAM but unless you have very sophisticated timing instruments, I dare say the difference in speed is mostly imaginary. Increase the processor speed and things begin to FLY!
I have Operating System System Model Windows 98 SE (build 4.10.2222) Processor a Main Circuit Board b 2.60 gigahertz Intel Pentium 4 8 kilobyte primary memory cache 512 kilobyte secondary memory cache Board: ASUSTeK Computer INC. P4S800 REV 1.xx Bus Clock: 200 megahertz BIOS: Award Software, Inc. ASUS P4S800 ACPI BIOS Revision 1004 07/09/2003 Drives Memory Modules c,d 120.00 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity 99.98 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space
Your system is way more powerful (and faster) than my old desktop but the limiting factor in all of this is still Windows 98SE.
Hope this help. Herb. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release Date: 9/10/2005 Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp