Thanks! I remember seeing it but did not understand at the time what use it
might be or how to use it. It now becomes clearer that it might be the more
appropriate indicator as you suggest. Thanks for bringing it back into my
memory.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
If you have Win95 or Win 98 there is a little utility called SYSMON. It has
a fantastic range of graphs it can show you, including Allocated RAM,
Swapfile in Use, Disk Cache Size, Unused Physical RAM. Do a File Find for
SYSMON. If you can't find it, search your Windows disk. Very handy in
tweaking one's configuration (e.g. setting PS's memory).
If you can't find it I can mail it to you...
Jawed
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
> Sent: 26 July 2001 19:03
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> I have also been told that; but noone has ever suggested exactly how one
> determines if it is being used or not. I noticed in both systems
> that since
> the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
> less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> resources available), which is one thing which I take as an
> indication that
> the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account. Since all my
> heavy RAM use is with image editimg applications and they all use
> either the
> swap file in Windows or theirown scratch files, it is difficult
> to determing
> when they have stoped using actual RAM and switched over to virtual RAM.
> Howver, you may be right; I just do not know how to tell.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500 LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and
> > the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-)
>
> Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't add any benefit, which is what
> I have been told to expect.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Sleep
> http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film
> scanner info
> & comparisons
>
>
