NT/2k/XP are still very limited in the max number of simultaneous applications

[Marco Venturi]

Hi all!

I am a Windows power user and I always had, even with different PC and RAM
quantity, a problem recurring atleast one time a day: when I have opened
more than 20-30 programs, the opening of new windows/programs doesn't have
effect or gives progressively strange effects (i.e. windows without menu and
buttons) till it doesn't do anything anymore.

In this precise moment it's happening on my XP.
My strong suspect is that this has always been an internal software
limitation (connected to the limited size of resource heaps) of Windows
NT/2K/XP, as when in Windows 3.x/9x/ME one got the "insufficient memory"
error.

My Task Manager is showing the following data and I can't open even little
applications without closing some application before:

Totals:
Handles: 23194
Threads: 1249
Processes: 74

Physical Memory (K):
Total: 752016
Available: 154048
System Cache: 230176

Commit Charge (K):
Total: 1367024
Limit: 1871520
Peak: 1448860

Kernel Memory (K):
Total: 182012
Paged: 158696
Nonpaged: 23316

Anyway I don't think there's a strict relation of this problem with the
total physical memory or the total physical+virtual memory. I think more
that it's an intrinsic Windows limitation. I think that it's a matter of
system resources/resource heaps instead of memory, as this article describes
well: http://aumha.org/win4/a/resource.php (System Resources FAQ).

In the case I try to launch a graphic Win16 application I get the explicit
error: "The Win 16 Subsystem has insufficient resources to continue running.
Click on OK, close your applications, and restart your machine." Fortunately
it's normally sufficient to close some application, without restarting, to
come back to use the program.
Setting this application to "Run in separate memory space" or setting it in
Compatibility Mode 9x doesn't solve.

I'ld like to find a document with the "ultimate" explanation of how is this
limitation in Windows XP (NOT an old document regarding 3.x/9x/ME nor NT)
and to find the way to increase the number of application I can open
simultaneously or, if this is not possible, how and how much in the future
this limitation will be enhanced by Microsoft in future versions of Windows.
Does someone know something about all this?

I found this software that could help for win 16 programs but it's too old:
http://www.qualitas.com/tech/max/goahead.htm.
and I found this opinion on the net: "Ron M. replies: RAM Defrag programs
are totally useless and cannot perform any beneficial function for any
computer. Period. All RAM addresses are equally accessible and there is zero
difference in the time required to access addresses at the opposite ends of
the RAM address range as compared to adjacent addresses. Both are virtually
instantaneous.
Also "system resources" as the term was used in Windows 95/98/Me are totally
irrelevant in Windows XP because XP uses 32 bit resource heaps exclusively."

Marco Venturi

 

[SlowJet]

I read that and the other site that linked to XP VM.

Without rewriting the book, it says, each program "programmer of" (and I got
the sense that it was especially true for 16-bit apps) over allocated the VM
to make a best guess as to how much will be needed and the actual program
ends up using far less. For example, 128 MB is allocated but the program
usually only uses 4 MB.
These over allocated empty pages are nothing more than VM address
reservations, and XP knows this and puts the reservations on the swap file.
There may never be a sign of anything there from the user view.

So, 30 program X 128 MB = 3,840 MB of VM.
Less 4 MB x 30 = 120 MB of real memory (which would be no big use.) However,
if the VM addresses can't go on the page file (too small) then they go into
memory. I. E. 1 GB memory is used up by
(1024 MB / 128 MB = 8 over alocated programs.)

On a pc with 512 MB of memory and a 1 GB page file we get
1024 MB / 124 MB = 8 or 9 programs running. Plenty for most people.

On a pc with 1 GB memory and a 2 GB page file we get
2048 MB / 124 MB = 16 or 17 BUT the page file VM address space needed is
124 MB x 16 = 2032 MB. hummm, just fits by cawinkie dink.

Try creating another page file of 4 GB and see what happens with 30 16-bit
programs open.

This explains why the page file needs to be 1.5 to 2.5 times memory even for
4 GB machines, but espcially true for 1 Gb memory or less.

SJ

P. S. I download that page file monitor program for a try.

 

[Marco Venturi]

Try creating another page file of 4 GB and see what happens with 30 16-bit

programs open.

But I have the VM setted to "System managed size" and I've more than 20 GB
free that Windows could use to increase this size. If it's like you say,
why don't my Windows just increase the VM size?

And what can you say about the fact I can't even open a new Internet
Explorer windows with the following amount of free memory (other than the 20
GB free space)?

Physical Memory (K):
Total: 752016
Available: 154048
System Cache: 230176

Commit Charge (K):
Total: 1367024
Limit: 1871520
Peak: 1448860

Furthermore, I can say you that when I only had 256 MB of RAM instead of 768
MB the maximum number of sim. applications seemed the same to me...

M.

 

[SlowJet]

I would say that the page file has a max even when windows does it. I would
say set it to 4 GB min and max and try it as it is a simple test and doesn't
affect anything.
I would say it doesn't matter how many bits a program is built on, it still
uses VM and there may be over allocation.

The only other item I remember reading about was a map of VM (or memory)
that limited the memory for non 32 bit programs to the fisrt 4 MB. So when
the working set reaches 4 MB of all these WOW'ed legacy programs there is no
more room in the inn.

SJ

 

[Marco Venturi]

I would say that the page file has a max even when windows does it. I would
say set it to 4 GB min and max and try it as it is a simple test and
doesn't affect anything.
I would say it doesn't matter how many bits a program is built on, it
still uses VM and there may be over allocation.

The only other item I remember reading about was a map of VM (or memory)
that limited the memory for non 32 bit programs to the fisrt 4 MB. So when
the working set reaches 4 MB of all these WOW'ed legacy programs there is
no more room in the inn.

I tried to set VM to 4096min/4096max and I still had the error "The Win 16
Subsystem has insufficent resources to continue running. Click on OK, close
your applications, and restart your machine."

At the moment I still not received errors from Win 32 application. I'll try
to open more applications and let you know if the situation is changed.

Marco

 

[Marco Venturi]

The only other item I remember reading about was a map of VM (or memory)

I tried to set VM to 4096min/4096max and I still had the error "The Win 16
Subsystem has insufficent resources to continue running. Click on OK,
close your applications, and restart your machine."

At the moment I still not received errors from Win 32 application. I'll
try to open more applications and let you know if the situation is
changed.

Ok I reached the limits.
From a fresh reboot of XP, I opened 20 istances of Internet Explorer plus
about 30 other programs. At this point, some programs already opened starts
to work partially or to not work at all. For example Microsoft Photodraw
doesn't open new images anymore (pressing the "open" button simply have no
effect, till I close some applications). The "E" of Internet Explorer in the
quick launch section of task bar doesn't open anything, till I close some
applications. Etc.

Note that Task Manager tells me "Commit Charge: 1085M / 4789M" so it seems
to me that nothing is changed since before.

Do you have other suggestions? I think that you can verify this limit on
your XP system too..

M.

 

[Leythos]

Ok I reached the limits.
From a fresh reboot of XP, I opened 20 istances of Internet Explorer plus
about 30 other programs. At this point, some programs already opened starts
to work partially or to not work at all. For example Microsoft Photodraw
doesn't open new images anymore (pressing the "open" button simply have no
effect, till I close some applications). The "E" of Internet Explorer in the
quick launch section of task bar doesn't open anything, till I close some
applications. Etc.

Note that Task Manager tells me "Commit Charge: 1085M / 4789M" so it seems
to me that nothing is changed since before.

Do you have other suggestions? I think that you can verify this limit on
your XP system too..

Just because you have 4gb of swap space does not mean you can use it -
the OS and many apps have a limit to what can be sent to swap and still
have a presence on your system.

 

[Alex Nichol]

This explains why the page file needs to be 1.5 to 2.5 times memory even for
4 GB machines, but espcially true for 1 Gb memory or less.

Why the 'potential' size, as set by Max needs to be high, the initial
size usually does not need it as long as it is enough to cover actual
use of the file

 

[Mike Hall]

Ok I reached the limits.
From a fresh reboot of XP, I opened 20 istances of Internet Explorer plus
about 30 other programs. At this point, some programs already opened
starts to work partially or to not work at all. For example Microsoft
Photodraw doesn't open new images anymore (pressing the "open" button
simply have no effect, till I close some applications). The "E" of
Internet Explorer in the quick launch section of task bar doesn't open
anything, till I close some applications. Etc.

Note that Task Manager tells me "Commit Charge: 1085M / 4789M" so it seems
to me that nothing is changed since before.

Do you have other suggestions? I think that you can verify this limit on
your XP system too..

M.

Is this how 'power users' spend their days?..

 

[Marco Venturi]

I tried to set VM to 4096min/4096max and I still had the error "The Win 16

Subsystem has insufficent resources to continue running. Click on OK,
close your applications, and restart your machine."

I forgot to precise: I got this error since I opened 20-30 application so it
seems that the limit for Win 16 applications in XP is lower than that for
the Win 32 apps.

M.

 

[Marco Venturi]

Ok I reached the limits.

Is this how 'power users' spend their days?..

It seems that when one opens applications and then close them Windows
doesn't recover all the resources, doesn't return to the prevoius state...
Since I never reboot my Windows XP, that would imply every times the bad
work of closing all the apps and writing down all the work-in-progress, even
because during the day I always work on it and during the night it
automatically does backups and anti-malware scans, it happens to me
frequently that I encounter the resources' limit even with just 30-40
applications opened.
Now, since I already have 21 necessary opened applications in tray-bar
(Macro Scheduler, Babylon, Drivecrypt, Messenger, NAV, etc.), my remaining
work space is little!

I'm surprised to see that I'm the only person that use Windows so
intensively.

M.

 

[Ted Zieglar]

"I'm surprised to see that I'm the only person that use Windows so
intensively."

The rest of us have lives.

Ted Zieglar

 

[Leythos]

Now, since I already have 21 necessary opened applications in tray-bar
(Macro Scheduler, Babylon, Drivecrypt, Messenger, NAV, etc.), my remaining
work space is little!

I'm surprised to see that I'm the only person that use Windows so
intensively.

You don't actually need those open all the time, at least not to
properly use the system. You, like others I've seen, choose to leave
those open all day long. I, have more than 200,000 files on this
computer, use Excel, Word, PhotoShop, PageMaker, Visio, NAV, and many
others running, but I don't leave Outlook open most of the day, only
when I have time to check email. I also close applications when I'm done
using them for the session, not leaving them open for the day.

I suspect that many of us use our computer more intensively than you,
but we do so in a more efficient/wiser method.

 

[Marco Venturi]

but I don't leave Outlook open most of the day, only

when I have time to check email.

My computer (2,6Ghz) take about 10 minutes to open my PST 5,8GB big with
Extended Reminder, and 2 minutes to close it. During this time my computer
is very very slowed down so that I almost can't do anything else.
I receive tens emails/day and I frequently use journal, tasks and notes of
Outlook.
If I have to wait (without being able to work decently) 10 minutes to start
writing a note or a new task, it would be useless and inefficient.

I also close applications when I'm done
using them for the session, not leaving them open for the day.

I think that working sequentially is often inefficient. I've many things to
do that are better performed in parallel way, waiting for the inspiration...

M.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

My computer (2,6Ghz) take about 10 minutes to open my PST 5,8GB big
with Extended Reminder, and 2 minutes to close it. During this time my
computer is very very slowed down so that I almost can't do anything else.
I receive tens emails/day and I frequently use journal, tasks and
notes of Outlook.
If I have to wait (without being able to work decently) 10 minutes to
start writing a note or a new task, it would be useless and
inefficient.

Archival - learn to use outlook properly and your extended opening and
closing time could be a thing of the past. I have customers who think they
HAVE to keep mail forever like that - or keep the attachments in their
outlook.. Not true - because I archive their email without their knowledge
before a certain date (sometimes as little as 3 months prior to the current
date) and only ONCE out of hundreds have I had anyone notice.

I think that working sequentially is often inefficient. I've many
things to do that are better performed in parallel way, waiting for the
inspiration...

How you work is your own option - but if you learned to optimize your
workspace - then your inefficiency issue fades away (see my Outlook comment
for starters..)

 

[Marco Venturi]

My computer (2,6Ghz) take about 10 minutes to open my PST 5,8GB big

Archival - learn to use outlook properly and your extended opening and
closing time could be a thing of the past. I have customers who think
they HAVE to keep mail forever like that - or keep the attachments in
their outlook.. Not true - because I archive their email without their
knowledge before a certain date (sometimes as little as 3 months prior to
the current date) and only ONCE out of hundreds have I had anyone notice.

To separate a single body of data in two parts is a objective loss, if it's
not for a computer performance reason. In ex. when I want to search for a
past message with the advanced search I would have to manually do two
searches instead of one.
If there's the way to keep it in a single body without performance losses,
for example by leaving Outlook open (and not having any "stupid" resource
limits), I only see a disadvantage on it.
Another consideration: if I keep it open in Outlook as an Archive PST this
would imply the same computer performance losses as in keeping all the data
in the main PST file. If, instead, I don't keep the Archive PST ready/opened
in Outlook I would be impossible to search through it without manually open
it before.

I can't image of a successful business man or freelancer in Internet
business that don't have sometimes to read the mails/journal/tasks items
that are older than 3 (or 12 months...) or attachments in old items.
Only if you work for a big company or the State, and you don't really care
about it, you can do it without troubles

M.

 

[Cyber-Hun]

Anyone who even attempts to have 30 instances of an application open is
using something in a way that it wasn't supposed to used (one app can have
30 documents open, but, for instance, having 30 instances of MS word open is
ludicrous). How can you not expect trouble having 30 applications open, and
then trying to open more?!?

 

[Guest]

You won't get much help from Microsoft on this one, but
I was able to solve a similar problem by increasing the desktop heap from
3MB to 8MB:
see my posting
http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroup...&pt=&catlist=&dglist=&ptlist=&exp=&sloc=en-us

 

[Guest]

Sorry, the correct link is
http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroup...3ee927-1fea-4eb6-bc80-128a5cce7028&sloc=en-us

 

[t-da-pcman]

The Win 16 Subsystem has insufficient resources

This is a real ez fix 4 this!!!

Simply rename ur profile to c:\doc & sets\xxxxx.old, then reboot & let windows recreate ur profile (make sure ya log back n with same username u've been using) & wellah!!! Problem solved.

Man I scare myself sometimes w/how good I am!