On 31 Oct 2002 at 14:28, Phil Daley wrote: > At 10/31/2002 02:12 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > >> >No, it was not removed. The size of the buffers was vastly increased, > >> >possibly even made dynamic. > >> > >> No. The separate buffers for GDI memory was eliminated. > > > >While the total buffer size was vastly increased. The buffers were > >not entirely eliminated though -- you can still run out of stack > >space. > > > >> >You can get the "out of memory" or "not enough memory to update > >> >screen: please close some programs" message on Win2K (and you could > >> >get it on NT 4, too), just not nearly as often, and under much > >> >heavier load than in the Windows versions based on the Win9x kernel > >> >(Win95, Win98, WinME). > >> > >> Of course, you can always run out of actual memory. > > > >It's not actual memory. > > > >My system has 768MBs of real RAM and a swap file of minimum 768MBs > >with no cap (well, it could max out the 20GB drive it lives on). I > >have seen the "not enough memory to update screen" message, and there > >was plenty of physical RAM and swap space available. That means some > >internal buffer filled up, probably the buffer that replaced the > >separate GDI/User stacks in the Win3.x and Win9x kernels. > > You clearly do not understand the difference between stack memory, heap > memory and user allocated memory.
Oh? I wasn't the one that said that I'd run out of actual memory, not resources. > You also don't understand the difference between non-paged pool and paged > pool memory. Yes, actually, I do. > When you run out of non-paged pool memory, you cannot continue. ???? Maybe you mean "run out of non-pageable" pool memory? When you fill up the memory in the whole pool (RAM + swap file) and there are no discardable pages in that pool, you have a problem. That has nothing to do with what I reported, or my system would have been completely locked. > Running out of stack space is programmer error. Yes, and it's not the same thing as "actual memory," which was your response to my comment. You implied that I was describing running out of "actual memory," when all I was reporting was the programmer error you identify. What was the point of your response? It makes no sense whatsoever. You keep making factually incorrect mistakes, and then when I correct you, you make mistakes of your own. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
