WindowsXP Just as Limited in "Resources" as Win9x?

[TekWiz]

Here's a question that's been driving me crazy for years:

From Windows 95 to 98 there was always a "limited resources" problem
which meant that you couldn't run more than a limited number of
"Windows" (browser windows/programs) regardless of how much system
memory you had. Some programs would take up more of these limited
resources and some less, but overall you really couldn't run very much
at once.

One day I tried Windows 2000 beta and I tried running lots and lots of
Windows and I was impressed with how many I could open with no crash.

Later on, I upgraded my Windows98 to WindowsXP and noticed that it
wasn't nearly as capable. Same old limited resources--maybe a little
better, but pretty pathetic. Here I am with 512 MB, and I have the
following open, and already had Photoshop quit on me which made my
blood boil:

6 Explorer windows
Ultraedit with 5 windows inside
1 wordpad
Realplayer 7
6 IE
MyTimer (little thing)
Windows Task manager
Dreamweaver
1 Notepad
1 Word document
1 IM Window
and
Photoshop with like 4 documents open.

Well as soon as I opened a couple more in photoshop, and went to layer
properties, it crashed due to limited resources.

I keep having to fight with Windows and keep closing browser windows,
explorer windows, etc. just to "keep my head above the water". And no,
I don't have a lot of little apps running on my taskbar--system is
pretty clean--I have maybe 8 taskbar apps running, and not
viruses/highjackers, etc.

Sometimes on TV, the sell laptops with WinXP, like on HSN, and the guy
likes to open like dozens of video windows, etc, to show how capable
the laptop is. Never tried that but maybe whatever he's opening
doesn't take much resources.

Question is: is there something wrong with my WindowsXP installation
or is it a fact that WindowsXP is simply a nice looking toy--whenever
you try to really work with it, it's out of resources. In short it's
only good for people who fool around with a browser window, etc.? If
yes, is the Mac also limited this way? Linux? If not, then why isn't
Micro$oft out of business--why would anyone pay $$$ for a toy
operating system???

Tek.

 

[Torgeir Bakken \(MVP\)]

Here's a question that's been driving me crazy for years:

From Windows 95 to 98 there was always a "limited resources" problem
which meant that you couldn't run more than a limited number of
"Windows" (browser windows/programs) regardless of how much system
memory you had. Some programs would take up more of these limited
resources and some less, but overall you really couldn't run very much
at once.

One day I tried Windows 2000 beta and I tried running lots and lots of
Windows and I was impressed with how many I could open with no crash.

Later on, I upgraded my Windows98 to WindowsXP and noticed that it
wasn't nearly as capable. Same old limited resources--maybe a little
better, but pretty pathetic. Here I am with 512 MB, and I have the
following open, and already had Photoshop quit on me which made my
blood boil:

6 Explorer windows
Ultraedit with 5 windows inside
1 wordpad
Realplayer 7
6 IE
MyTimer (little thing)
Windows Task manager
Dreamweaver
1 Notepad
1 Word document
1 IM Window
and
Photoshop with like 4 documents open.

Well as soon as I opened a couple more in photoshop, and went to layer
properties, it crashed due to limited resources.

I keep having to fight with Windows and keep closing browser windows,
explorer windows, etc. just to "keep my head above the water". And no,
I don't have a lot of little apps running on my taskbar--system is
pretty clean--I have maybe 8 taskbar apps running, and not
viruses/highjackers, etc.

Sometimes on TV, the sell laptops with WinXP, like on HSN, and the guy
likes to open like dozens of video windows, etc, to show how capable
the laptop is. Never tried that but maybe whatever he's opening
doesn't take much resources.

Question is: is there something wrong with my WindowsXP installation
or is it a fact that WindowsXP is simply a nice looking toy--whenever
you try to really work with it, it's out of resources. In short it's
only good for people who fool around with a browser window, etc.? If
yes, is the Mac also limited this way? Linux? If not, then why isn't
Micro$oft out of business--why would anyone pay $$$ for a toy
operating system???

Tek.

Hi,

You could expand the allocation value in the interactive desktop heap
and see if that helps.

It is the registry value "Windows" under this key that defines the
allocation size:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\
\Session Manager\SubSystems\


The second number in this substring is the value that defines this size:

....SharedSection=1024,3072,512 ...

Before you think about editing that value, please read the two
following Knowledge Base articles carefully:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;184802

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;126962

And from a previous post:

From: Willy Denoyette [MVP]
Subject: Re: System resource usage
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.performance
Date: 2003-12-01 14:59:51 PST

<quote>
User objects are allocated from the desktop heap which has a system
wide size of 48MB on W2K, this heap consists of three sharedsections,
the first is common to all desktops, the second is per interactive
desktop, and the third is reserved for non interactive desktops.

The values for the three distinct heaps is taken from the registry when
the CSRSS process starts
(see:HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session
Manager\SubSystems\Windows), what you could do is paly a little bit
with the values found in there taking care that the sum of all heaps
must fit into 48 MB!!!
</quote>

 

[Bob I]

Sounds like an iffy install to me. If you did do a "upgrade" rather than
a clean install from 98 to XP you brought over a lot of dead baggage and
numb settings.