Is it worth upgrading to XP Pro ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kevin Lawton
  • Start date Start date
K

Kevin Lawton

I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is 'okay'.
Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps like
word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
efficiency I'd rather be without them.
So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble of
upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ? What
do I stand to gain - or lose ?
TIA
Kevin.
 
Kevin Lawton said:
I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
'okay'.
Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
like
word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
efficiency I'd rather be without them.
So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble
of
upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
What
do I stand to gain - or lose ?
Click to expand...

If you're happy with 2K Pro then I suggest you stick to 2K Pro, at least
until it reaches end of life and you no longer get security fixes for it, or
until you clearly identify a feature in XP (or any other OS) that you would
really like.

I chose the upgrade path, but I'd might as well have left it alone. XP
introduces a whole bunch of new fancy bells and whistles, but I have turned
of most of them. The only things I have found in XP Pro that is better than
2K Pro is handling of multi-monitor setups, better application compatibility
(particularly games and demos) and faster boot time. On the downside is tons
of annoying bells and whistles, higher hardware requirements and lower
stability.
 
In
Kevin Lawton said:
I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and
it is
'okay'. Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general
use.
My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail,
office
apps like word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo
editing, CD
burning, etc. Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter'
work.
Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye
candy'
like animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and
for the
sake of efficiency I'd rather be without them.
So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to
the
trouble of upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick
with
Windows 2000 ? What do I stand to gain - or lose ?
Click to expand...

My view is that you're going about this backward. A change of
operating system should be driven by need, not just because there
is a new version available. Are you having a problem with Windows
2000 that you expect XP to solve? Do you have or expect to get
new hardware or software that is supported in XP, but not in
2000? Is there some new feature in XP that you need or yearn for?
Does your job require you have skills in XP? Are you a computer
hobbyist who enjoys playing with whatever is newest?

If the answer to one or more of those questions is yes, then you
should get XP. Otherwise most people should stick with what they
have, especially if it's 2000, which is very similar to XP. There
is *always* a learning curve and a potential for problems when
you take a step as big as this one, regardless of how wonderful
whatever you're contemplating moving to is. Sooner or later
you'll have to upgrade (to XP or its successor) because you'll
want support for hardware or software that you can't get in 2000,
but don't rush it.

I say all the above despite the fact that I'm a big XP fan. I
think it's the best and most stable of all versions of Windows.
 
Kevin said:
I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is 'okay'.
Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps like
word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
efficiency I'd rather be without them.
So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble of
upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ? What
do I stand to gain - or lose ?
TIA
Kevin.
Click to expand...
I think it is not in a hurry for you to upgrade to XP.
MS offers online and phone call services for 5 years,
so don't give up your rights now.
 
Ben said:
I think it is not in a hurry for you to upgrade to XP.
MS offers online and phone call services for 5 years,
so don't give up your rights now.
Click to expand...

What is Win2K doing / not doing that is making you wanting to switch? If you
are satisfied with your interface with Win2K, stay with it.

I use both operating systems and can tell you they have a different feel to
them. XP does a lot of hand holding and hiding a lot of choices. WinXP
offers more of a, by comparison, no frills approach and, in my personal
opinion, is much better suited to business use.

This is not to say WinXP Pro is a bad choice for business, but with all that
it tries to do, I see it better adapted to gaming than running business
applications. This is my personal opinion, and I will not take offense if
you differ from it. I do use XP Pro on two different PCs in a domain network
(mandatory as XP Home will not join a domain) and have absolutely no
problems with networking or running apps. I've never had any memory or CPU
usage problems with either XP machine, but there seems to be more overhead
with XP because of all it wants to manage. Lastly, I am more at home with
Win2K interface because I've run that interface longer.
 
I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is 'okay'.
Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps like
word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
efficiency I'd rather be without them.
So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble of
upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ? What
do I stand to gain - or lose ?
TIA
Kevin.
Click to expand...
I have a not dissimilar situation.

I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs except for
one thing.

That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources daily.

My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a machine
lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP dynamically
allocates further resource segments on an "as needed" basis.

Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR, but that
seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU basically idling at
88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro -- and
SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it. Computer "set-up" has
become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded over the years.


FACE
 
Besides the system and user resources issues and stability, Win98 is not as
secure as XP Pro. If you run the Upgrade Advisor (insert the XP cd while in
Windows and choose from the splash screen) you can see if you need to take
any actions before starting an upgrade. Disconnect all peripherals except,
of course, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. Update your motherboard drivers,
NIC driver, and video driver from the manufacturer's website. Check for
viruses and spyware. Then upgrade. You will be pleased with the result.
Setup under XP Pro is straight forward and nothing to be feared. Be sure to
defragment the hard drive after the upgrade. It will be pretty well
fragmented by the installer. Convert to NTFS when you are satisfied that
the upgrade is OK and then download Diskeeper 9 Professional trial version
and run the boot time defragmenter to defragment the directory structure.
 
| On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
| <[email protected]> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
| wrote:
|
| >I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
'okay'.
| >Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
| >My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
like
| >word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
| >Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
| >Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
| >animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
| >efficiency I'd rather be without them.
| >So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble
of
| >upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
What
| >do I stand to gain - or lose ?
| >TIA
| >Kevin.
| >
| I have a not dissimilar situation.
|
| I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs except for
| one thing.
|
| That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources daily.
|
| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
| segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
| flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
machine
| lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP dynamically
| allocates further resource segments on an "as needed" basis.
|
| Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR, but that
| seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU basically idling
at
| 88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro -- and
| SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it. Computer "set-up"
has
| become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded over the years.
|
|
| FACE
|
|

Have you thought of upgrading RAM on your Win98 setup. Personally I've found
256MB of RAM to be the sweet spot. Also limiting the size of the Internet
Cache and clearing out caches helps a lot. There are free programs that can
automate the process. Empty TempFolders is one
http://www.danish-shareware.dk/soft/emptemp/index.html If you have any third
party apps installed that claim to free up RAM you may wish to get rid of
them as generally they are more problematic than they are useful.

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
 
| On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
| <[email protected]> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
| wrote:
|
| >I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
'okay'.
| >Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
| >My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
like
| >word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
| >Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
| >Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
| >animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
| >efficiency I'd rather be without them.
| >So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble
of
| >upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
What
| >do I stand to gain - or lose ?
| >TIA
| >Kevin.
| >
| I have a not dissimilar situation.
|
| I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs except for
| one thing.
|
| That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources daily.
|
| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
| segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
| flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
machine
| lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP dynamically
| allocates further resource segments on an "as needed" basis.
|
| Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR, but that
| seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU basically idling
at
| 88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro -- and
| SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it. Computer "set-up"
has
| become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded over the years.
|
|
| FACE
|
|

Have you thought of upgrading RAM on your Win98 setup. Personally I've found
256MB of RAM to be the sweet spot. Also limiting the size of the Internet
Cache and clearing out caches helps a lot. There are free programs that can
automate the process. Empty TempFolders is one
http://www.danish-shareware.dk/soft/emptemp/index.html If you have any third
party apps installed that claim to free up RAM you may wish to get rid of
them as generally they are more problematic than they are useful.

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
Click to expand...

I have 256mb of RAM.
16M is taken for on-board video.
I see a lot of messages posted saying that I need 512m for XP Pro.

On the temp files, I cut the temp IE cache from 2G (windows' install choice)
to 300m last summer.

RAM free-er uppers? I have been known to use TASKINFO 2003 to slow flush
RAM on occasion. Not often, since that sure does put an end to current
streaming.

FACE
 
Upgrade Advisor? Will do. That will be nice to get a view of what the new
animal does and does not like before the plunge
 
<snip>
| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
| segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
| flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
| machine lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP
| dynamically allocates further resource segments on an "as needed"
| basis.
<snip>
I would have expected that the allocations to User/DGI resources were
specified by values in the registry - let's face, just about everything else
is !
Could anyone possibly confirm this and, it is so, suggest what those
registry values might be ?
I tend to run my systems with lots of RAM - 512 Mb minimum, and up to 1 Gb -
so 64Kb is a pathetic amount to allocate to something which is easily filled
to the point of causing a problem.
Kevin.
 
You don't need 512MB for Pro, but it will run nicely with 512MB. What will
happen with 256MB is that the hard drive will run more because you will be
using the page file more, so you can improve performance with more memory.
You can always add memory at your leisure. Pro will run on your machine,
though.

FACE said:
| On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
| <[email protected]> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
| wrote:
|
| >I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
'okay'.
| >Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
| >My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
like
| >word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
| >Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
| >Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy'
like
| >animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
| >efficiency I'd rather be without them.
| >So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the
trouble
of
| >upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
What
| >do I stand to gain - or lose ?
| >TIA
| >Kevin.
| >
| I have a not dissimilar situation.
|
| I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs except
for
| one thing.
|
| That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources daily.
|
| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
| segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
| flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
machine
| lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP dynamically
| allocates further resource segments on an "as needed" basis.
|
| Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR, but that
| seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU basically
idling
at
| 88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro --
and
| SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it. Computer "set-up"
has
| become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded over the years.
|
|
| FACE
|
|

Have you thought of upgrading RAM on your Win98 setup. Personally I've
found
256MB of RAM to be the sweet spot. Also limiting the size of the Internet
Cache and clearing out caches helps a lot. There are free programs that
can
automate the process. Empty TempFolders is one
http://www.danish-shareware.dk/soft/emptemp/index.html If you have any
third
party apps installed that claim to free up RAM you may wish to get rid of
them as generally they are more problematic than they are useful.

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
Click to expand...

I have 256mb of RAM.
16M is taken for on-board video.
I see a lot of messages posted saying that I need 512m for XP Pro.

On the temp files, I cut the temp IE cache from 2G (windows' install
choice)
to 300m last summer.

RAM free-er uppers? I have been known to use TASKINFO 2003 to slow flush
RAM on occasion. Not often, since that sure does put an end to current
streaming.

FACE
Click to expand...
 
<snip>
| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
| segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
| flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
| machine lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP
| dynamically allocates further resource segments on an "as needed"
| basis.
<snip>
I would have expected that the allocations to User/DGI resources were
specified by values in the registry - let's face, just about everything else
is !
Could anyone possibly confirm this and, it is so, suggest what those
registry values might be ?
I tend to run my systems with lots of RAM - 512 Mb minimum, and up to 1 Gb -
so 64Kb is a pathetic amount to allocate to something which is easily filled
to the point of causing a problem.
Kevin.
Click to expand...
Kevin,
Yes, it is surprising.
I can relay the in-depth answer that I got on
microsoft.public.win98.performance, back in August. The thread name was
"Increase USER and GDI resources?" and it may shed light on this holdover
from the halcyon days of no viruses and no spyware:


~~~~

Not to worry, I'm only rude in response to ill manners. :-)

The resource pools and their 64k limit are a gift of the compatibility gods.
Windows 3.1 was a 16-bit operating system, so if you do the math (2^16) you
get 65,536 (or 64kb) as the maximum size that a memory pool can be. When
Windows 95 came out it used a 32-bit memory model but it needed to support
those older 16-bit programs, so it maintained the User and GDI pool sizes so
they'd run correctly.

At about the same time as Windows 95 came Windows NT. The NT kernel
attempted to handle these older 16-bit programs by running them in a virtual
session - carve out a chunk of memory and make it look like a 16-bit system,
then load and run the program in that chunk of memory. The problem was (and
still is!) that this breaks as many programs under Windows NT as it fixes.

The sad part is that _only_ the User and GDI pools are limited in Win9x -
there are other 32-bit pools that can be used. And you can dynamically
destroy items you've placed in the User and GDI pools when you're done with
them, freeing up that memory for other uses. So, why don't they? I don't
know. Maybe programmers are fundamentally lazy and use the User and GDI
pools the way they do because it's easier.

(n.b. - I am a programmer and I am lazy, as are many of my
programmer-friends, but I don't assume this tendency transfers to all other
programmers.<G>)

But to get back on point ... if you could change the size of the User and
GDI pools you would break all sorts of interesting things when a program
assumes they'll be the correct size and dips into them to pull out a
resource. So you'd also have to modify programs to expect a larger than
expected pool. Neither of these are trivial tasks and would run the risk of
breaking operating system functions that expect the User and GDI pools to be
64kb in size. So you'd have to modify Windows as well.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x] (e-mail address removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

~~~~

I don't think Richard would mind me reproducing this...it is in the google
archives anyway.

Anyway, ultimately that was the answer i got as to if i could increase
USER/GDI under Win 98 after i had poked a little bit (apparently not rudely
though :-)) for an answer greater in detail than "No."


FACE
 
I looked on the disk root directory. I opened "Readme.htm" and there were
text files options to read.
My CD is not autorun, so do I activate d:\setup and find "Upgrade Advisor"
there? And it will deep scan the system for compatibilities?

As to peripherals, should I disconnect the speakers?

Presumably it will let me cancel out without changing anything after i run
the Upgrade Advisor?

FACE
 
FACE said:
I looked on the disk root directory. I opened "Readme.htm" and there were
text files options to read.
My CD is not autorun, so do I activate d:\setup and find "Upgrade Advisor"
there? And it will deep scan the system for compatibilities?

As to peripherals, should I disconnect the speakers?

Presumably it will let me cancel out without changing anything after i run
the Upgrade Advisor?

FACE
Click to expand...
A search on microsoft .com for Upgrade Advisor got at least 40 hits
try this one:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/advisor.mspx

gls858
 
It seems to me that with memory being so cheap at the moment, it is one of
the most cost-effective upgrades you can make to a windows machine - unless,
of course, you already have plenty.
Kevin.

| You don't need 512MB for Pro, but it will run nicely with 512MB.
| What will happen with 256MB is that the hard drive will run more
| because you will be using the page file more, so you can improve
| performance with more memory. You can always add memory at your
| leisure. Pro will run on your machine, though.
|
| || On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:01:52 -0600, "Harry Ohrn"
||
|||
||| |||| On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
|||| <[email protected]> in
|||| microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics wrote:
||||
||||| I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it
||||| is 'okay'. Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general
||||| use.
||||| My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail,
||||| office apps like word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo
||||| editing, CD burning, etc. Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and
||||| butter' work.
||||| Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye
||||| candy' like animated icons and screen savers are of no interest
||||| and for the sake of efficiency I'd rather be without them.
||||| So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the
||| trouble
||| of
||||| upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows
||||| 2000 ? What do I stand to gain - or lose ?
||||| TIA
||||| Kevin.
|||||
|||| I have a not dissimilar situation.
||||
|||| I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs
|||| except for one thing.
||||
|||| That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources
|||| daily.
||||
|||| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two
|||| 64K segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the
|||| glitzy, flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the
|||| result is a machine lockup on GDI failure. My further
|||| understanding is that XP dynamically allocates further resource
|||| segments on an "as needed" basis.
||||
|||| Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR,
|||| but that seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU
|||| basically
||| idling
||| at
|||| 88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro
|||| -- and SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it.
|||| Computer "set-up" has become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded
|||| over the years.
||||
||||
|||| FACE
||||
||||
|||
||| Have you thought of upgrading RAM on your Win98 setup. Personally
||| I've found
||| 256MB of RAM to be the sweet spot. Also limiting the size of the
||| Internet Cache and clearing out caches helps a lot. There are free
||| programs that can
||| automate the process. Empty TempFolders is one
||| http://www.danish-shareware.dk/soft/emptemp/index.html If you have
||| any third
||| party apps installed that claim to free up RAM you may wish to get
||| rid of them as generally they are more problematic than they are
||| useful.
|||
||| Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
||| www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
|||
||
|| I have 256mb of RAM.
|| 16M is taken for on-board video.
|| I see a lot of messages posted saying that I need 512m for XP Pro.
||
|| On the temp files, I cut the temp IE cache from 2G (windows' install
|| choice)
|| to 300m last summer.
||
|| RAM free-er uppers? I have been known to use TASKINFO 2003 to slow
|| flush RAM on occasion. Not often, since that sure does put an end
|| to current streaming.
||
|| FACE
 
Okay - thanks for sending that info. Now I understand 'why' the question
becomes 'what can we do to get around the problem ?'.
If, as it seems, many programmers are too lazy to include the code to
release the User/GDI pool resources they have used after they are needed,
then I'm thinking that maybe there is some sort of system utility program
available which performs a kind of 'garbage collection' function so that
resources no longer required are released ?
Does anyone know of the existence of such a utility or whether it is even
possible ?
Kevin.

| On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:02:18 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
| <[email protected]> in
| microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics wrote:
|
|| <snip>
||| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two
||| 64K segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the
||| glitzy, flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the
||| result is a machine lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding
||| is that XP dynamically allocates further resource segments on an
||| "as needed"
||| basis.
|| <snip>
|| I would have expected that the allocations to User/DGI resources were
|| specified by values in the registry - let's face, just about
|| everything else is !
|| Could anyone possibly confirm this and, it is so, suggest what those
|| registry values might be ?
|| I tend to run my systems with lots of RAM - 512 Mb minimum, and up
|| to 1 Gb - so 64Kb is a pathetic amount to allocate to something
|| which is easily filled to the point of causing a problem.
|| Kevin.
||
||
| Kevin,
| Yes, it is surprising.
| I can relay the in-depth answer that I got on
| microsoft.public.win98.performance, back in August. The thread name
| was "Increase USER and GDI resources?" and it may shed light on this
| holdover from the halcyon days of no viruses and no spyware:
|
|
| ~~~~
|
| Not to worry, I'm only rude in response to ill manners. :-)
|
| The resource pools and their 64k limit are a gift of the
| compatibility gods. Windows 3.1 was a 16-bit operating system, so if
| you do the math (2^16) you get 65,536 (or 64kb) as the maximum size
| that a memory pool can be. When Windows 95 came out it used a 32-bit
| memory model but it needed to support those older 16-bit programs, so
| it maintained the User and GDI pool sizes so they'd run correctly.
|
| At about the same time as Windows 95 came Windows NT. The NT kernel
| attempted to handle these older 16-bit programs by running them in a
| virtual session - carve out a chunk of memory and make it look like a
| 16-bit system, then load and run the program in that chunk of memory.
| The problem was (and still is!) that this breaks as many programs
| under Windows NT as it fixes.
|
| The sad part is that _only_ the User and GDI pools are limited in
| Win9x - there are other 32-bit pools that can be used. And you can
| dynamically destroy items you've placed in the User and GDI pools
| when you're done with them, freeing up that memory for other uses.
| So, why don't they? I don't know. Maybe programmers are
| fundamentally lazy and use the User and GDI pools the way they do
| because it's easier.
|
| (n.b. - I am a programmer and I am lazy, as are many of my
| programmer-friends, but I don't assume this tendency transfers to all
| other programmers.<G>)
|
| But to get back on point ... if you could change the size of the User
| and GDI pools you would break all sorts of interesting things when a
| program assumes they'll be the correct size and dips into them to
| pull out a resource. So you'd also have to modify programs to expect
| a larger than expected pool. Neither of these are trivial tasks and
| would run the risk of breaking operating system functions that expect
| the User and GDI pools to be 64kb in size. So you'd have to modify
| Windows as well.
 
Back
Top