Re: Size limit of table field ?
On Wednesday, October 6, 2004, at 02:50 PM, Martin Baxter wrote: You're correct. The application memory you allocate is not used for data/stacks/media. I think only the engine etc is loaded into there, and if you allocate extra application memory it won't be used for anything, it will just reduce the total amount of memory available to the rest of the system (which includes your app's components). Cool, I''ll have to go back and confirm this on an older 9.0 iMac. I've added 15,000 kbts to an app that doesn't need it. Thanks, Mark ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Size limit of table field ?
>Mark Brownell wrote: >On Wednesday, October 6, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Martin Baxter wrote: > >> I can confirm that it's true even for a 68k standalone running on >> system 7.6 >> >> If you increase the application memory, you can actually make the >> situation >> worse, because it leaves less for the system heap, which is where the >> application is actually getting memory from (as I understand it). >> I was quite vexed by this when I first saw it (but I changed my >> medication >> and have calmed down now;-) >> >> Martin Baxter > >So if I understand this if I allocate more memory for my standalone >apps created for classic Mac OS in order to make room for media running >in my standalone I would actually be making less room for my standalone >application and media? Of course I will need to test this. Does the >standalone builder in Mac OS classic running on classic set a proper >memory size for each standalone that it builds? > >This is interesting because some users only have 32 meg systems. > >Mark > You're correct. The application memory you allocate is not used for data/stacks/media. I think only the engine etc is loaded into there, and if you allocate extra application memory it won't be used for anything, it will just reduce the total amount of memory available to the rest of the system (which includes your app's components). I'm still using RR2.1.2 so can only go by that but the default app memory allocation for MacOS in the SB is 8000K and that seems about right. You can enter a figure for it yourself in the SB if you think it's insufficient, but I've found 8000K is OK for my needs. A largeish Rev app I have running on the machine I'm typing this on (which is a Quadra with 36mb ram) uses about 75% of that allocation, and that figure stays more or less constant no matter how you use the app. However, my app also grabs about 10MB of system heap during startup, presumably as a result of my initialisation handlers loading stacks and data. So if it were running in its own exclusive memory partition it would need about 17MB just to start up. Running under actual MacOS 7.6 is enlightening because "about this computer" shows the system memory fluctuating as applications grab system heapspace during operation, which I haven't seen displayed in later OS versions. I've never tried the TMEM resource hack that Richard Gaskin described elsewhere but I have no reason to doubt it works if you really need to make an application stay religiously in its own ram playpen. Martin Baxter ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Size limit of table field ?
> > > If you increase the application memory, you can actually make the situation > worse, because it leaves less for the system heap, which is where the > application is actually getting memory from (as I understand it). > I was quite vexed by this when I first saw it (but I changed my medication > and have calmed down now;-) I can confirm the above. This was also true with MC : I remember delivering a large standalone to a client, and carefully setting the memory allocation for MacOS 9 so that it could run easily, and my client wasn't even able to launch it on a powerbook G3... After checking my app, I realized that it didn't used the memory size I allocated, but instead used a large portion of the available RAM... As for my problem with the crashed stack, thank you all for the proposed solutions, but as I had a backup I made shortly before the crash, I don't really need to open it at all cost... I just wanted to point out that it was the major problem I had with Rev in 1 month (read : need re-install the app) and that it crashed the revonline stack also... Best, JB ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Size limit of table field ?
On Wednesday, October 6, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Martin Baxter wrote: I can confirm that it's true even for a 68k standalone running on system 7.6 If you increase the application memory, you can actually make the situation worse, because it leaves less for the system heap, which is where the application is actually getting memory from (as I understand it). I was quite vexed by this when I first saw it (but I changed my medication and have calmed down now;-) Martin Baxter So if I understand this if I allocate more memory for my standalone apps created for classic Mac OS in order to make room for media running in my standalone I would actually be making less room for my standalone application and media? Of course I will need to test this. Does the standalone builder in Mac OS classic running on classic set a proper memory size for each standalone that it builds? This is interesting because some users only have 32 meg systems. Mark ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Size limit of table field ?
I can confirm that it's true even for a 68k standalone running on system 7.6 If you increase the application memory, you can actually make the situation worse, because it leaves less for the system heap, which is where the application is actually getting memory from (as I understand it). I was quite vexed by this when I first saw it (but I changed my medication and have calmed down now;-) Martin Baxter >Mark Brownell wrote: >On Wednesday, October 6, 2004, at 12:10 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote: > >> Increasing Rev's memory on MacOS 9 is no solution because Rev uses >> dynamic memory. >> >> Mark >> >> Mark Brownell wrote: >> >>> Try increasing the allowable memory allocated to Rev on system 9 for >>> the Mac. That might allow it to open. >>> Mark > > >Is that true of Mac 9 OS on an old mac classic machine running Rev? > >Mark > ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Size limit of table field ?
On Wednesday, October 6, 2004, at 12:10 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote: Increasing Rev's memory on MacOS 9 is no solution because Rev uses dynamic memory. Mark Mark Brownell wrote: Try increasing the allowable memory allocated to Rev on system 9 for the Mac. That might allow it to open. Mark Is that true of Mac 9 OS on an old mac classic machine running Rev? Mark ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Size limit of table field ?
Mark Schonewille wrote: Increasing Rev's memory on MacOS 9 is no solution because Rev uses dynamic memory. If memory serves (yes, pun intended) there's a TMEM resource you can modify with ResEdit to alter that behavior -- from the MetaCard "Read Me": -- A "TMEM" resource controls use of the MacOS memory management system. It contains two bytes. The first byte controls whether temporary memory is used for normal heap management (1 for yes, 0 for no). The second byte controls whether temporary memory is used for pixmap storage (window backing pixmaps and images, 1 for yes, 0 for no). By default both are enabled, and can be changed only with a resource editor (e.g., Resedit). If you set one or both bytes to 0, you'll also have to increase the MetaCard application partition size in the Finder (figure about 6MB + the size of all stacks you'll be editing). -- That was written before the engine added the ability to get and set Mac resources. If one had time and interest they could write a GUI for modifying those TMEM values in a standalone. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation __ Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Size limit of table field ?
Increasing Rev's memory on MacOS 9 is no solution because Rev uses dynamic memory. Mark Mark Brownell wrote: Try increasing the allowable memory allocated to Rev on system 9 for the Mac. That might allow it to open. Mark -- eHUG coordinator mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: +1 501 633 94 04 http://home.wanadoo.nl/mark.sch http://www.ehug.info ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Size limit of table field ?
Mark , > On Monday, October 4, 2004, at 02:57 PM, jbv wrote: > > > Fortunately I have a copy of that stack. I'm not sure if the > > 5000 lines is the cause of the problem (and don't feel like > > trying to reproduce it). > > But I'm wondering if anyone has any useful info about > > a possible limit regarding table fields content... > > > > Thanks, > > JB > > Try increasing the allowable memory allocated to Rev on system 9 for > the Mac. That might allow it to open. > this is actually the first thing I tried, but no luck... btw the problem also trashed my copy of revonline : the stack won't open anymore... this is the 2nd major reinstall of Rev I need to do within 1 month... I have versions of MC (2.4.1 for instance) installedon my HD since summer 2001 and they never crashed, never corrupted any stack nor file, etc... [sigh] JB ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Size limit of table field ?
On Monday, October 4, 2004, at 02:57 PM, jbv wrote: Fortunately I have a copy of that stack. I'm not sure if the 5000 lines is the cause of the problem (and don't feel like trying to reproduce it). But I'm wondering if anyone has any useful info about a possible limit regarding table fields content... Thanks, JB Try increasing the allowable memory allocated to Rev on system 9 for the Mac. That might allow it to open. Mark ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Size limit of table field ?
Hi there, I have a card with a table field containing about 1.8 Mb of data and roughly 5000 lines (don't ask, it was a variable mistake). Anyway, I accidentally save my stack (with that amount of data in the table field). And now Rev refuses to open it (MacOS 9) and quits abruptly when I try. I even need to restart the Mac after each attempt. Fortunately I have a copy of that stack. I'm not sure if the 5000 lines is the cause of the problem (and don't feel like trying to reproduce it). But I'm wondering if anyone has any useful info about a possible limit regarding table fields content... Thanks, JB ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
