Hello Karin Spaink,
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 02:57:53 +0200 GMT your local time,
which was Wednesday, October 04, 2000, 7:57:53 AM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Karin Spaink wrote:
> On 04-10-2000 at 01:14, tracer kindly wrote:
>> John Sullivan wrote:
>>> Something I've noticed a couple of times is how ungraceful TB is in
>>> low-memory situations.
>> Arent all these tasks a bit much for a lousy OS like windows???(g)
> That's irrelevant. The original question is: shouldn't TB
> warn you when it notices its resources are running low, and
> allow you to close it _elegantly_.
As windows is the one allocating resources its very relevant.
The OS is the thing doing that as they will teach you in any basic
course computer science.
The Bat may not be able to see that supposed memory isnt around
anymore... It may not even BE the memory but handles and other
things being allocated.
If one runs a lot of tasks as I do as well, 98 just doesnt do it and
blaming it on programs running in an unsuitable environment isnt
really helpful. Run it with same memory / hardware and loading under
NT and see if it behaves better, if it does, blame 98.
The example tasks as mentioned are kind of optimistic...
>> I myself am very happy to have moved to 2000, It does allow shutdowns
>> much easier and crashes much less.
> That is rather beside the point.
It IS the point. if you try to ride in the tour the france on a normal
dutch lady bicycle and obviously come last, the fault isnt that of
the bike OR the roads but of the driver.
And obviously getting annoyed at getting told is also irrelevant.
> Tracer, you seem to have a habit of answering questions by
> referring people to other software / OS's. You did it to me
> as well today. Since that is hardly helpful, I suggest you
> abstain from suggestions like this.
Why? its the truth.
Secondly, personal remarks off list please so I can say what I think
(g) without upsetting the moderators.
If you donot like a helpful suggestion ignore it. And anyway, it
wasnt directed at you OR your system.
I ran 98 for many years, I was betatesting the thing and its by far less stable then
2000.
I donot really like 2000 either but then we havent got really a
choice. But in comparison, ignoring what doesnt work, its many times
better. If you havent run a heavy loaded system under 2000, please stay
out of the argument as you cannot compare it yourself. And if it comes
to software problems I donot think you have the background anyway.
If someone is overloading an OS in a way it will never run happy, I
tell them that. Send that list of tasks running to MS and see what
they say... Amount of memory isnt the only thing which is important
either.
My job has involved computers for many years and if people donot
listen to well meant advice, not my problem, I donot have to sort the
mess out as I donot get paid for it(g).
No need anyway to try to stir me up, I just enter a filter... and many
years in computer development/support have left me with the skin of a "polite"
elephant...
reminds me, I was intrigued by the link you posted a while back.
Is http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/images/write.html really your photo??
Best regards,
tracer
--
Using theBAT 1.47 Beta/5 with Windows NT
mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am using FireTalk: 321338
ICQ: on request
Website: www.phuketcomputers.com
Our special website hosting/mailservers are now operational
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
