"User Stack" in Windows XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doug Kanter
  • Start date Start date
D

Doug Kanter

This is ancient history, but I seem to recall that Windows 98 could only use
a certain amount of RAM for loading programs, so no matter how much RAM you
added, there was still a limit as to how many programs you could run at once
before the OS got twitchy. Does XP theoretically have similar limits?
 
Doug said:
This is ancient history, but I seem to recall that Windows 98 could only use
a certain amount of RAM for loading programs, so no matter how much RAM you
added, there was still a limit as to how many programs you could run at once
before the OS got twitchy. Does XP theoretically have similar limits?
Click to expand...

No.

Alias
 
Alias said:
No.

Alias
Click to expand...

Just to confirm my understanding then:

-In Win98, more RAM (to an extent) would allow you to open larger files, but
not necessarily run more apps.

-In XP, more RAM *will* permit more apps to run.
 
Doug Kanter said:
This is ancient history, but I seem to recall that Windows 98 could only use
a certain amount of RAM for loading programs, so no matter how much RAM you
added, there was still a limit as to how many programs you could run at once
before the OS got twitchy. Does XP theoretically have similar limits?
Click to expand...

You're thinking about the "System Resources" heaps, which were
fixed-size areas in the Win9x systems. WinXP does a *much* better job
here, you will not run out of resources while still having lots of RAM
left. You simply don't need to worry about this in WinXP.
 
Tim Slattery said:
You're thinking about the "System Resources" heaps, which were
fixed-size areas in the Win9x systems. WinXP does a *much* better job
here, you will not run out of resources while still having lots of RAM
left. You simply don't need to worry about this in WinXP.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Tom. The point of the question was to assist in my decision on RAM
for a new laptop. I guess I'm buying all I can get. :-)
 
Doug said:
Thanks, Tom. The point of the question was to assist in my decision on
RAM for a new laptop. I guess I'm buying all I can get. :-)
Click to expand...

If you don't mind my 2 cents, Tim - think about what kind of work you
will do on the laptop. If it is a gaming laptop or you do Photoshop
type stuff, get 2GBs if the laptop m/b allows. Otherwise, go with 1GB
and you should be happy.

Malke
 
Malke said:
If you don't mind my 2 cents, Tim - think about what kind of work you
will do on the laptop. If it is a gaming laptop or you do Photoshop
type stuff, get 2GBs if the laptop m/b allows. Otherwise, go with 1GB
and you should be happy.

Malke
Click to expand...

No games, but running simulteously:
ACT for Windows
Paradox 4.5 (DOS app)
Excel 2000
Winfax
Firefox
Norton Antivirus
Zonealarm
Word (sometimes along with all the other crap)

Things get pretty sluggish on the current machine, an 800mhz with 256 mb or
RAM (the limit for this machine). 1mb sounds right.
 
Doug said:
No games, but running simulteously:
ACT for Windows
Paradox 4.5 (DOS app)
Excel 2000
Winfax
Firefox
Norton Antivirus
Zonealarm
Word (sometimes along with all the other crap)

Things get pretty sluggish on the current machine, an 800mhz with 256
mb or RAM (the limit for this machine). 1mb sounds right.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry to have called you "Tim". I guess I missed that you were the
OP. Forgive me. I think 1GB should do you fine, but I'll tell you what
will really bog you down - Norton products. So when you get that shiny
new machine, think about using something other than Norton AV and/or
Norton Internet Security.

Malke
 
Doug said:
No games, but running simulteously:
ACT for Windows
Paradox 4.5 (DOS app)
Excel 2000
Winfax
Firefox
Norton Antivirus
Zonealarm
Word (sometimes along with all the other crap)

Things get pretty sluggish on the current machine, an 800mhz with 256 mb or
RAM (the limit for this machine). 1mb sounds right.
Click to expand...

I have one gig/AMD Athlon XP 3000+ and open and use a lot more programs
than that with lightening speed.

Alias
 
Doug said:
Just to confirm my understanding then:

-In Win98, more RAM (to an extent) would allow you to open larger
files, but not necessarily run more apps.

-In XP, more RAM *will* permit more apps to run.
Click to expand...


No. It's essentially the same for both operating systems. More RAM enables
you to run *faster* if you run more and bigger apps, but doesn't permit more
apps to run *or* larger files to be opened. If there isn't enough RAM, page
file (or swap file) is substituted. The combination of RAM plus page file
works exactly as if there were more RAM, except that using page file is
slower.

So if you want to compare a machine with 128MB of RAM and one with 4GB of
the RAM (the Windows XP limit), they both permit opening the same size files
and the same number of apps, but the 128MB machine will be much slower
because of its heavy page file use.
 
Doug said:
No games, but running simulteously:
ACT for Windows
Paradox 4.5 (DOS app)
Excel 2000
Winfax
Firefox
Norton Antivirus
Zonealarm
Word (sometimes along with all the other crap)

Things get pretty sluggish on the current machine, an 800mhz with 256
mb or RAM (the limit for this machine). 1mb sounds right.
Click to expand...


To add to Malke's point, more RAM helps you to the extent it keeps you from
using the page file. If you already have enough RAM to do that, more RAM
does almost nothing for you and is a waste of money.

Looking at your workload, I suspect that 512MB would do just fine for you,
and that 1GB would be a waste of money. My recommendation is to get that
512MB initially. You can always add more later if it turns out that you need
it. Go to http://billsway.com/notes_public/winxp_tweaks/ and download
WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should give you
a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more.
 
Ken Blake said:
To add to Malke's point, more RAM helps you to the extent it keeps you
from using the page file. If you already have enough RAM to do that, more
RAM does almost nothing for you and is a waste of money.

Looking at your workload, I suspect that 512MB would do just fine for you,
and that 1GB would be a waste of money. My recommendation is to get that
512MB initially. You can always add more later if it turns out that you
need it. Go to http://billsway.com/notes_public/winxp_tweaks/ and
download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That
should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so,
how much more.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Ken. I think I'll download it for the current machine. Perhaps it'll
help illustrate for him why the machine runs so slowly. He's 16. Maybe the
info will sink in. Nah.....what am I thinking? :-)
 
Doug said:
Thanks, Ken. I think I'll download it for the current machine.
Perhaps it'll help illustrate for him why the machine runs so slowly.
He's 16. Maybe the info will sink in. Nah.....what am I thinking? :-)
Click to expand...


You're welcome. Glad to help.
 
Doug said:
Thanks, Tom. The point of the question was to assist in my decision on RAM
for a new laptop. I guess I'm buying all I can get. :-)
Click to expand...

Exactly. Go for at least 1 gig. More if you can afford it.
 
Doug said:
This is ancient history, but I seem to recall that Windows 98 could only use
a certain amount of RAM for loading programs, so no matter how much RAM you
added, there was still a limit as to how many programs you could run at once
before the OS got twitchy. Does XP theoretically have similar limits?
Click to expand...

Well, for win98 it was "resources", not ram. And yes, one could run out
of resources no matter how much ram you had and your system would crash.
The only way to fix that was to run less programs at the same time.

With XP you can run out of "physical ram", but it's not very common and
that niggle seems to only happen with certain programs. Rare, but
happens, and the fix is to always add more ram. Yes in theory this
shouldn't happen with XP, but in practice, it sometimes does.
 
Doug said:
-In XP, more RAM *will* permit more apps to run.
Click to expand...

No. I could have 20 apps on my XP pc running and have no problem. But, I
may have a huge memory hog app that "demands" to see more ram on my xp
pc than I have to work without getting an "out of memory" message".
 
Malke said:
If you don't mind my 2 cents, Tim - think about what kind of work you
will do on the laptop. If it is a gaming laptop or you do Photoshop
type stuff, get 2GBs if the laptop m/b allows. Otherwise, go with 1GB
and you should be happy.
Click to expand...

Right. Photoshop is one of those apps that want to see at least 1 gig.
 
Doug said:
No games, but running simulteously:
ACT for Windows
Paradox 4.5 (DOS app)
Excel 2000
Winfax
Firefox
Norton Antivirus
Zonealarm
Word (sometimes along with all the other crap)

Things get pretty sluggish on the current machine, an 800mhz with 256 mb or
RAM (the limit for this machine). 1mb sounds right.
Click to expand...

Or, get 2 gig and be ready for the next MS OS.
 
Back
Top