Anybody wanting to use Legacy 6 on a Windows ME or earlier Windows
versions, you might want to visit these two sites and read very
important information for yourself!
http://aumha.org/win4/a/resource.php
and
http://www.mytechsupport.ca/support/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2938
The 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:
I kept WIN 98 because it had taken me so long to get used to it.
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.
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.
What would I need to change to get LEGACY 6 to work ?
Probably YES. Windows XP, based on the NT kernel, doesn't have the 64K
heap limitation.
Would more memory be enough ?/
No. More memory wouldn't help a Windows 98(SE) system. (Remember, the
64K limitation cannot be overcome.)
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
