System Resources?

[lev4ik]

System Resources xx% free
What is it and how does it taste?
Memory..Free Space..CPU? http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
When the solution is simple, God is answering.

[sleddog]

Windows system resources are discussed briefly here on the PCGuide website: http://www.pcguide.com/opt/opt/win.htm

Though I am surprised that there isn't a more detailed treated of resources under Win 95/98. The page referenced above suggests that system resource problems are fixed under Win 95, which is hardly the case http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Paleo Pete]

Just to see if I can put it down in an understandable manner...

System resources are a combintaion of CPU and memory availability. The xx% free refers to how much of the overall combination is available to programs and applications to use to do their work. 82% free, for instance, means your computer is using 18% of its total combined CPU and RAM power, and 82% is available for programs and applications to use to run.

A detailed explanation is beyond me, I'd have to dig out a book that's buried somewhere in a box at the moment, till we get this place finished up. According to Charles' article in the above link, my including CPU might not be correct, but I always consider CPU to be included, since you have to have CPU power too, and it usually is a consideration when running just about anything. [i/ie[/i] if you're running 4 applications, and one or two kepp the CPU pumping to try and keep up, I would think that would be a resource issue...correct me if I'm way out in left field here...

------------------
My hairdresser charges me a finder's fee!!

Please post your questions on the forums, not in my email.

Computer Information Links (http://www.geocities.com/paleopete/)

[ixl]

So-called "system resources" refer to pockets of memory used for specific tasks like creating icons, opening files and such within the operating system. They have no real relationship to the total amount of system memory.
sleddog, did you ever use Windows 3.x extensively? If so, you'd understand what I mean. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif I routinely open 15+ windows under Windows 95; with Win3.x you'd be lucky to get 5 open before problems started. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Charles M. Kozierok
Webslave, The PC Guide (http://www.PCGuide.com)
Comprehensive PC Reference, Troubleshooting, Optimization and Buyer's Guides...
Note: Please reply to my forum postings here on the forums. Thanks.

[sleddog]

Originally posted by ixl:
So-called "system resources" refer to pockets of memory used for specific tasks like creating icons, opening files and such within the operating system. They have no real relationship to the total amount of system memory.
sleddog, did you ever use Windows 3.x extensively? If so, you'd understand what I mean. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif I routinely open 15+ windows under Windows 95; with Win3.x you'd be lucky to get 5 open before problems started. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif


Yes I did. In fact I dimly recall a brief struggle with Windows 2.something http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif I agree, and I hope I didn't sound critical -- you do an absolutely wonderful job with the site.

[Son of Zeus]

Sleddog,

Was intending to use my 100th post here to list a series of “funnies” (cartoons, jokes etc) I am gathering from across the Net, but if I wait till I get them together for posting I may be ready to retire.

So to add to the above discussion I want to advise u of an important point (just in case u aren’t already aware): Windows Leaks. By this I mean that the system resources allocated to Application Programs by the Windows Operating System are not generally given back in their entirety.

What this means in practise (always the best way to view a PC’s operations) is that Windows loses resources over time. When I first boot my PC in the morning I have 98% System Resources free. After I open & close some applications & actually do something with my machine that amount drops rather quickly. Running an older machine I regularly reboot to get these back again ie. up to 98% each time I reboot.

With a modern system I would not worry about this, as 75% or less on System Resources will not affect them much. But with an older PC if I ever reach 75% or less I am made aware of it fairly quickly as my machine starts to run much slower than usual.

This may seem like a major hassle, as others point out to me regularly in other threads. But really I don’t see what all the fuss is here. Whenever I stop to make a phone call, to rustle up a cup of coffee, or to take a “comfort break” I simply save any open programs then click “Start/Shut Down/Restart” & turn off my monitor. Whilst I go about my business for a few minutes Windows goes about its business, & when I return I turn the monitor back on to find that the system has done a warm boot & I have all my System Resources back again ie. 98% available.

Too easy. What’s all the fuss about rebooting? OK I know it annoys a lot of people...I guess it relates to how u use your machine. Note...the above only applies to Win 9x series OSs. Win NT & 2000 are built on NTFS, which is entirely different to the DOS FATs & is much better at many things, including Resource Allocation & reclaiming said resources.

Cheers.......Son of Zeus.

P.S.
An update for anyone who knows me. I have just picked up two (2) PI 166MHz machines for my Mom (boxing it up & sending it down to Tasmania for her) & I as we are both starting the “Introduction to Computers” Course thru MSU over the Net starting January 18th.

After that Mum is retiring (from PC courses that is-she has already retired from the workforce, but wants to learn about PCs) whilst I intend to continue with their Web Design course & then Win2000Pro etc from there.

Shalom All. Hope u had a great Chrissie & an even better 2001.

[xor_chad]

Hiya
Just a note on SOZ's post. That is indeed a common problem with Windows, but it is not Windows itself. I hate the guys a MS just as mush as every other guy but sometimes things are not their fault http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

This occurance is called a memory leak.
Memory leaks occur because sloppy programers write software that reserves memory for execution and it does not release the memory when the program is terminiated. This could be due to many things like the program closing unexpectadely or pointers of arrays not releasing more than the first memory address of an entire 32 dword array(bad programming).

Windows itself has just as much potential to have a memory leak - espically considering the millions of lines of code - but fortunately MS usually patches it up in the ofical release or a patch.

Anyway. Since no one dared give it a shot yet, i would say it taste ... like chicken! Laters...

------------------
Chad Wilson
C++/ASM Programmer
PC Support Technician

[Son of Zeus]

xor_chad, Sleddog, lev4ik,

need to clarify some points as I may have confused everybody, including myself, with my last post.

First, it should have been addressed to lev4ik rather than Sleddog. Must have been watching telly at the same time as posting.

Second, my comment “By this I mean that the system resources allocated to Application Programs by the Windows Operating System are not generally given back in their entirety“ wasn’t meant to be a go at Microsoft per se. I have no major complaints about their software, except in the areas of pricing: I think they charge too much for it, & time to market: I believe they often release it too early, when it should have been held back for further testing.

The fact that when I talk to people here in IT they say that they do not recommend that their companies upgrade to the latest MS software till Service Pack 1 (SP1) is released confirms this. This may be one of the reasons for poor PC sales recently. Business users haven’t been migrating from NT to Win2000Pro as quickly as expected. As the SP2 is now in beta & should be released shortly this situation might change & spur some much-needed growth in PC sales.

Third, not certain on “this is indeed a common problem with Windows, but it is not Windows itself. I hate the guys a MS just as mush as every other guy but sometimes things are not their fault”. As I said I have nothing personal against Microsoft, although I would like to see their monopoly on pre-installed software broken & some genuine competition take place in that area. Certainly an Operating System is only as good as the applications it runs. If the apps are flaky or buggy the OS may get blamed for that & vice versa.

I see this as being similar to the situation with earlier AMD CPUs. AMD took the blame for such things as video cards & other hardware not working properly when the real reason was that their processors, which are very hungry for power, did not leave earlier PSUs enough juice to power the rest of the system. Providing newer systems with 300W PSUs solved this problem. Also software that didn’t run well, or at all, with AMD processors was due to a lack of driver & other software implementations for their processors. This was resolved by improving the software. There are other similar examples as well but I don’t have any with me.

I am sure that Microsoft likewise has taken flack over their programs, which they didn’t deserve. But my understanding is that NTFS is by its nature a more stable & reliable platform than DOS & its FATs. Which is why they designate if for business users & is also the reason they want to move away from DOS & FATs altogether in their next major OS releases & merge the consumer & business lines into one.

Still think that “Note...the above only applies to Win 9x series OSs. Win NT & 2000 are built on NTFS, which is entirely different to the DOS FATs & is much better at many things, including Resource Allocation & reclaiming said resources” is true. Will need to investigate further here, but am sure that Win9x OSs are part of the problem & not just the apps in the recovery of Resources but would need to read further to confirm this.

Gotta Go Bronco.

Cheers.......Son of Zeus.

[ixl]

NTFS is a file system, and an option for Windows 2000 and NT. You can use either OS without using NTFS.

------------------
Charles M. Kozierok
Webslave, The PC Guide (http://www.PCGuide.com)
Comprehensive PC Reference, Troubleshooting, Optimization and Buyer's Guides...
Note: Please reply to my forum postings here on the forums. Thanks.

[xor_chad]

Hey Zeus
Man you are as bad as me about writing essays on here! :P
I figured you probably knew that already but i wanted to clarify so that some other readers wont be confused.

Yes the OS does have some impact on memory managment but it is not related to the issue at hand which is memory leaks rather more to topics on protected mode and real mode etc.

Charles kinda hinted around to at something important. The file system is not really relevant to memory management.

Sure NTFS is better in most aspects compared to using a FAT but that is pertaining to clustering and permisions and such.

If you run NT on a FAT it will still be more stable than Win9x/3.x.

I would like to hear why some OS's claim to be better at memory management tho so if you find something post it. I used to know but i overwrote that memory allocation with the number to Pizza Hut on accident (pass by reference error! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif) Laters...

------------------
Chad Wilson
C++/ASM Programmer
PC Support Technician

[Paleo Pete]

My A+ books containing this description are stored away in a box, so I'll try to do this from memory, since I can't copy it directly from the pages, as I normally do.

Memory allocation:

Windows 3.x uses cooperative multitasking, while Windows 9x/NT uses preemptive multitasking. (May have that backwards.)

Win3.x allocates system resources to each program in turn, so the program can do its job, and that program basically has control until it gives resources back to the system.

Win9x/NT gives resources to each program for a specific amount of time, then to the next, and so forth, whether the program gives control back to Windows or not. That is the difference between resource management between win3.x and 95/98/NT. I think it may also be the source of many of the problems with win95/98 locking up, not sure about NT. An application tries to use system resources, and the previous one hasn't given it back yet...CRASH!!

You can reboot now, thank you...

------------------
My hairdresser charges me a finder's fee!!

Please post your questions on the forums, not in my email.

Computer Information Links (http://www.geocities.com/paleopete/)

[scada]

Here's some information that may help to explain why NT has better memory management than other Windows OS. Simply put NT operates in two modes of memory. User and Kernal. All Apps run in user mode and can not access the kernal where the OS system's code is "running". (which is why NT doesn't lock up like Windows 9x when a program crashes)Also all processes have access to 4GB of VIRTUAL memory ( please do not confuse this with the amount of memory really installed or the size of the swap file. It is simply a "trick" NT uses in assigning memory locations to working sets.) Here's a tid bit from the MSDN libary :


"Note that in this respect of total isolation of critical operating-system data from user-mode application code, Windows NT Workstation 4.0 remains unchanged in being architecturally more robust than other PC operating systems such as Microsoft Windows® 95, IBM OS/2 Warp, and Apple® Macintosh® operating systems. All of those systems make a trade-off for greater performance and smaller memory footprint that involves putting critical system data structures in memory locations that are directly accessible to application code without transitioning through operating-system code to the privileged mode of the processor. That tradeoff is entirely appropriate for today's low- and medium-range platforms, but not in a high-end platform such as Windows NT. With Windows NT 4.0, it remains true that if application code can crash the system, Windows NT has a bug, period. In other typical PC operating systems, because of architectural choices inherent in their designs, application code can crash the operating system even when the system code is flawless."

Hope this helps to explain things. But if not let me know and I can post some more information from the MSDN libary.
http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Son of Zeus]

scada,

that "tid bit from the MSDN libary" was indeed a tasty one. If System Resources tasted like chicken this one would have to be like quality steak in a nice white wine sauce.

Good hunting old chap! Can u also supply the link to the Microsoft Library so I can read some more myself? Nothing like a good read.

Cheers.......Son of Zeus.

[Paleo Pete]

Don't know if I can even find the aricle scada referred to, but here's a link you can use to Search (http://search.microsoft.com/us/SearchMS25.asp) the MSKD. Problem is, I usually have to try 2 or 3 variants of keywords to get decent results...and it's sslllooooowwww....

------------------
My hairdresser charges me a finder's fee!!

Please post your questions on the forums, not in my email.

Computer Information Links (http://www.geocities.com/paleopete/)

[scada]

The MSDN libary does has some interesting stuff (alot of it above and beyond what I need to know) ,but it comes on a CD .I get it as part of the MSDN subscription and they send out updates every 3 months or so. There is an online version but you would need an MSDN suscription to get to it. Some of the stuff in there can be found on Microsoft's web site without using MSDN but I hate trying to search their site.Pete's link is proably the best way to search for those articles .If I can find a way to access more of the libary without having to logon to the site I'll post the information in the "after hours" area.

In the meantime if you would like me to look up something I would be happy to post the information from the libary for you.

[This message has been edited by scada (edited 01-04-2001).]