Where/What is the "Resource Meter" in XP?
Hubert
In WIN-95, there was/is a tiny utility (with a very handy
icon in the tray!) that is called "Resource Meter" and its
file is "RSRCMTR.EXE".
Where can it be found, or What is its equivalent in WIN-XP?
THANKS!
Hubert
kk7gw
the memory manager is much much better. You can get
current memory statistics and such from Task Manager,
right-click the taskbar and select Task Manager. On the
new window, click the performance tab.
>.
>
Davorin Mestric
pens, etc. (and on win16, a HANDLE was simply a pointer to this memory...),
later this was split into 2x 64.
NT does not have this memory. However, it is not true that the number of
open windows is limited only by the available memory. This is not true. It
is limited by some shared memory allocated at startup. I don't know if
performance monitor can show the percentage of this memory free/used.
With default values, you can not open more than (50-75) Explorer windows,
even if you have 500MB free ram. I was hitting this limit daily.
This is the registry key to increase this memory:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\
\Session Manager\SubSystems \ Windows
...SharedSection=3072,10240,2048
The second number seems to be the limiting factor, those are the values that
I have.
Davorin Mestric
Richard Urban
Win2000 and had no problems Typing a letter in the final window.
"Davorin Mestric" <davorin...@zse.hrXMIX> wrote in message
news:#ldVfBT5BHA.2008@tkmsftngp07...
Davorin Mestric
Ron Martell
Windows XP is 100% 32 bit, including the Resource Heaps. 32 bit Resource
Heaps can be up to 4 gb in size each, compared to the 64K limit for the 16
bit Resource Heaps used in Windows 95/98/Me.
So while System Resources are still used, because the same programs still
need the same functions and controls, but the 32 bit Resource Heaps in XP
are not going to get filled up the way the 16 bit ones did.
So concerns about System Resources are pretty much non-existent in XP and
therefore there is no need for or value in having a Resource Meter. All
it would do is tell you that system resources were 99.nnnnnn% free, no
matter how much you have open.
One final point. The usage of 32 bit Resource Heaps is one reason why
some Windows 3.x applications will not run on Windows XP. Some Windows
3.x applications were hard coded to work directly with the Resource Heaps
rather than use operating system function calls; and with no 16 bit heaps
present the code fails.
Hope this explains the situation.
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
Davorin Mestric
"Ron Martell" <r...@onlinehelp.bc.ca> wrote:
> So concerns about System Resources are pretty much non-existent in XP and
> therefore there is no need for or value in having a Resource Meter. All
> it would do is tell you that system resources were 99.nnnnnn% free, no
> matter how much you have open.
Resources are not a problem, however you do hit some other limit first,
without using all of free memory. how many explorer windows can you open?
what values you have in this registry key?
ButtKick
> "Hubert" <wo...@sinewave.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >In WIN-95, there was/is a tiny utility (with a very handy
> >icon in the tray!) that is called "Resource Meter" and its
> >file is "RSRCMTR.EXE".
> >Where can it be found, or What is its equivalent in WIN-XP?
> >THANKS!
> >
> >Hubert
>
> Windows XP is 100% 32 bit, including the Resource Heaps. 32 bit Resource
HAHAHA. 32 Bits. Easy Ron.
> Heaps can be up to 4 gb in size each, compared to the 64K limit for the 16
> bit Resource Heaps used in Windows 95/98/Me.
>
NOPE.
Memory Space=4GB. IIRC 2GB User + 2GB System
> So while System Resources are still used, because the same programs still
> need the same functions and controls, but the 32 bit Resource Heaps in XP
> are not going to get filled up the way the 16 bit ones did.
>
NOT ENTIRELY TRUE.
> So concerns about System Resources are pretty much non-existent in XP and
> therefore there is no need for or value in having a Resource Meter. All
> it would do is tell you that system resources were 99.nnnnnn% free, no
IT'S EASY TO FILL IT UP!
KEEP ON READING.
> matter how much you have open.
>
NOPE AGAIN.
> One final point. The usage of 32 bit Resource Heaps is one reason why
> some Windows 3.x applications will not run on Windows XP. Some Windows
> 3.x applications were hard coded to work directly with the Resource Heaps
> rather than use operating system function calls; and with no 16 bit heaps
> present the code fails.
>
HUMM, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE IT'S JUST M$ INCOMPATIBILITY AND
INCOMPETENCE TO MAKE
APIs WORK THE SAME WAY ACROSS ALL THEIRS OS.
> Hope this explains the situation.
>
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
WELL, WELL, WELL, WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!!
THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!
Sorry my language, but this is what micro$oft wants you to believe!
This is not true.
Want some proof?
Count how many windows of explorer you can open in Windows XP 2000
and NT, they will differ, WHY? The heap in WINNT is not that large as
you might have
thought, I believed that crap too, but try this.
When you open multiple explorer windows in NT you will fill 4 or 5
lines in
the taskbar, the memory will not be full, but you will reach a LIMIT!
It will stop opening any other windows components, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE
RESOURCE HAS BEEN CONSUMED!! And doing the same on Win2000 you will
open less windows because the OS itself consumes more resources than
NT, because of the fancy windows and fades and all that crap.
But in XP it's worse, I can't pass 3 lines of IEs opened in the
taskbar, it also depends on the content of the IE window.
And you can ask, who da hell will open moe than 30 windows of IE?
ME! god damn it, I have 1GB of memory and I will try to fill it, but
XP can't do it, always there memory free, even the cache doesn't fill
it up, And I tweaked the registry to make it bigger.
Well, I always loved Win98, and I use win98 lite, because is fast
and reliable, but honestly I'm using making a slow transition to XP
because of its
reliability, it's very stable. Not a UNIX like freebsd, but it's ok. I
'll never use XP or NT as a server anyway, to me this OS is only for
DESKTOP, server=UNIX=FreeBSD or Solaris.
Somebody has to write a resource meter for XP(NT), if nobody can do
it, I will do this task, it won't be easy with this M$ hiding API
technics.
I NEED A RESOURCE METER FOR XP.
This is something that bothered me for a long time, I couldn't be
quiet anymore.
Sorry Ron, you seem a nice guy, but don't believe the M$ HYPE.
Davorin Mestric
key to increase this memory:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\
\Session Manager\SubSystems \ Windows
...SharedSection=3072,10240,2048
The second number seems to be the limiting factor,
those are the values that
I have.
Davorin Mestric
"ButtKick" <buttk...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> > Heaps can be up to 4 gb in size each, compared to
the 64K limit for the 16
> > bit Resource Heaps used in Windows 95/98/Me.
> >
> NOPE.
> Memory Space=4GB. IIRC 2GB User + 2GB System
or 3 + 1 on a server with a different boot option.
also, this 2 MB system includes memory maped files and
some other things.
ButtKick
> This limit is easily increased. This is the registry
> key to increase this memory:
>
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\
> \Session Manager\SubSystems \ Windows
>
> ...SharedSection=3072,10240,2048
>
> The second number seems to be the limiting factor,
> those are the values that
> I have.
>
> Davorin Mestric
>
OK. te registry hack actually works, I tested and now I have less
limitations in XP than before, but to call this procedure EASY it's
not exactly fair. I do registry modifications all the time, when I
know where to change, but what about JoeHomeUser? How da hell he would
know about that? And even for hackers, this is a very obscure tweak.
The interesting thing is that if you put it too low, XP won't even
load the taskbar, it's just awesome, you can try it at home, but
backup your registry, because maybe you just can't boot or load GUI if
you set it too low.
That's a very good way to a virus mess with your computer.
Why this isn't a dynamic configuration, like normal OS do, WANT
MORE MEMORY? ALLOCATE IT!!!!! I just don't know. And WHY IT ISN'T A
GREATER VALUE BY DEFAULT, something is not right here, THIS IS A
RESOURCE LIMITATION, because if it's fixed and not dynamic allocated
like I said, WE COULD USE A FREAKING METER!
The bigger the slower? why it is so small by default?
Tell me Master Mestric!
If they are fixed, they can be monitored, and should BE! to know
when to increase the default value, right?
No M$ wants you to reboot one more time, that's I use unix on
Servers, SERVERS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO REBOOT ALL THE TIME.
XP is my desktop, so ok, I 'll reboot next monday.
>
> "ButtKick" <buttk...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> > > Heaps can be up to 4 gb in size each, compared to
> the 64K limit for the 16
> > > bit Resource Heaps used in Windows 95/98/Me.
> > >
> > NOPE.
> > Memory Space=4GB. IIRC 2GB User + 2GB System
>
> or 3 + 1 on a server with a different boot option.
> also, this 2 MB system includes memory maped files and
> some other things.
Like you said, A DIFFERENT BOOT OPTION. NOT DEFAULT!
??? M$ call it's systems easy to use, but I think it is the
hardest to tweak because of the lack of documentation.
UNIX is easier, even LINUX(wich I don't use, I prefer FreeBSD) is
easier, simply because THERE IS AN OPEN API, DOCUMENTATION HOWTOs ETC.
HIDING IS BAD!!!!
I HOPE DOJ helps to fix this things.
> the M$ HYPE.
Off course.
Humm M$ HYPE! With some pride you should say.
I thank you for the tip, I only found it here.
I respect your skils, you know what your talking about, but how did
you get this info?
Only if you work FOR M$ you can have this tweak, that's the only
way.
Tell me an easy way to understand the full line of that registry
key, and I'll admit I was wrong.
Since you work for M$ tell me how to open a blank window in IE when
hitting CTRL+N, and to make it not load the previuos page loaded, and
if possible how to make it opened maximized(fully) like Netscape did.
That's another thing I'm trying to get to work, I will have to hexedit
it?
Cya.
ButtKick
Well It finally happened, XP crashed on me with no reason, I had 300
MB of RAM free, and guess what, it said Page_Fault_In_Non_Paged_Area.
How come, if it had 300 MB free? Maybe that's why the registry hack
isn't set by default! 640kb(kbytes DOS era) is all M$ can control
without a crash.