Resources and Stability

Resource and Stability -

I use Windows Me and have 128 MB of RAM. Since my
computer was new I have always had problems with using
resources and having to reboot. Also, error messages and
stability have been an issue. However, resources are my
main concern.

I have tried all the known fixes, so feel my problem is
inherent in my system.

Are there upgrades in my hardware that would minimize
these problems. For example, would more memory be of help?

Thanks,
Jerry

Harvey
Fri Nov 21 21:59:02 CST 2003

More memory is of no help. What are your resources at start-up and how low
do they get? Have you run msconfig and disabled all that are not needed at
start-up?

"Jerry" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3c5901c3b0ac$51befb40$a601280a@phx.gbl...
>
> Resource and Stability -
>
> I use Windows Me and have 128 MB of RAM. Since my
> computer was new I have always had problems with using
> resources and having to reboot. Also, error messages and
> stability have been an issue. However, resources are my
> main concern.
>
> I have tried all the known fixes, so feel my problem is
> inherent in my system.
>
> Are there upgrades in my hardware that would minimize
> these problems. For example, would more memory be of help?
>
> Thanks,
> Jerry
>
>
>

Jerry
Sat Nov 22 00:10:03 CST 2003

Also, when they go low, I get numbers around 60% very fast.

>-----Original Message-----
>Resources at Start Up are 83%. And yes, I have disabled
>all Start Up options that I don't need.
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>More memory is of no help. What are your resources at
>start-up and how low
>>do they get? Have you run msconfig and disabled all
that
>are not needed at
>>start-up?
>>
>>"Jerry" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>message
>>news:3c5901c3b0ac$51befb40$a601280a@phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> Resource and Stability -
>>>
>>> I use Windows Me and have 128 MB of RAM. Since my
>>> computer was new I have always had problems with using
>>> resources and having to reboot. Also, error messages
>and
>>> stability have been an issue. However, resources are
my
>>> main concern.
>>>
>>> I have tried all the known fixes, so feel my problem is
>>> inherent in my system.
>>>
>>> Are there upgrades in my hardware that would minimize
>>> these problems. For example, would more memory be of
>help?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>.
>>
>.
>

Ron
Sat Nov 22 00:21:03 CST 2003

"Jerry" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Also, when they go low, I get numbers around 60% very fast.
>

With Windows Me concerns about System Resources should not arise until
they get down to the 10% level or close to it.

See http://www.onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#resources and also
http://www.aumha.org/win4/a/resource.htm for information about System
Resources.

Good luck



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."

James
Sat Nov 22 08:28:39 CST 2003



More memory should solve most all of these problems. I am surprise another
chap says more memory will not help resource problems.

More ram = more resources = less resource problems.


The advice to monitor the startup items is good advice of course, but more
memory will help you more than anthing, at least up to 512 megs of ram.

--James--

Mike
Sat Nov 22 08:48:00 CST 2003

FALSE
More RAM = identical resources = same resource problems as before
Less RAM = identical resources = same resource problems as before.

The amount of RAM installed has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the amount of
resources available.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mcmaltby@hotmail.com


James Nipper <jnipper@nospam.fdn.com> wrote:

> More memory should solve most all of these problems. I am surprise
> another chap says more memory will not help resource problems.
>
> More ram = more resources = less resource problems.
>
>
> The advice to monitor the startup items is good advice of course, but more
> memory will help you more than anthing, at least up to 512 megs of ram.
>

Jack
Wed Nov 26 10:17:29 CST 2003

I concur with Ron, and add this:

WinME System Resources

WinME has taken a revised approach to system
resources - it appears to be more relaxed about letting programs have
them (so appears to run at lower levels) but is more aggressive and
effective at forcing their release if they run to zero. I have known
cases where the warning about dangerously low has appeared (at around
2%) but the system has recovered to sensible levels with no action.
--
Alex Nichol MS-MVP (Desktop Systems)
Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.org
----

> Yesterday i opened 160 links in Avant in
> the same time and ZAP, Proxo, a scanner helper and creative audio hq
were
> also running (as always). And of course i worked with other programs
before
> doing that. After opening these 160 pages, resources went down to 1%
but i
> was able to work without problem (except a noticeable slow-down).
After
> managing a few links, i accidentally reopened the remaining links
(around
> 140) and this time it froze. But using CTRL+ALT+DEL i killed Avant and
> system recovered without any problem, to around 50% free resources and
i
> continued to work. So it's possible to work with even 1% of free
resources
> with Windows ME.
>
> Regards
> MasterPrometheus 11/17/2003
----


For other reasons, now that memory is so inexpensive, I urge you to
increase memory to a minimum of 256 MB, if the chipset and/or m/b will
permit.

--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-04 MVP for Win9X / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
Your cooperation is appreciated.
____
"Ron Martell" <ron@onlinehelp.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:b00urv8gu11r12eojo2uo8p7m2bj5o0c9q@4ax.com...
> "Jerry" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Also, when they go low, I get numbers around 60% very fast.
> >
>
> With Windows Me concerns about System Resources should not arise until
> they get down to the 10% level or close to it.
>
> See http://www.onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#resources and also
> http://www.aumha.org/win4/a/resource.htm for information about System
> Resources.
>
> Good luck
>
>
>
> 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."

Jack
Wed Nov 26 10:40:47 CST 2003

This issue is a problem of semantics.

MS (unwisely) long ago chose to describe five 16-bit system buffers as
"system resources", a technical term, and unrelated to the more general
term of "resources", which is widely used to describe many OS features,
as well as hardware. We have one word, "resources", used to describe two
things ---one quite specific, and the second, quite general. Many
casual users don't even know that "system resources" exist, or that two,
in particular, user and gdi, are frequently bottlenecks under Win9X.
Win9X also has 32-bit "system resources", and all "system resources"
under Win2K and XP are 32-bit. These 32-bit features are never an
issue for any typical user.

The critical, needed insight is that the two 64 KB, 16-bit Win9X "system
resources", user and gdi, have NOTHING to do with the amount of
installed RAM, or the size of any HD's, or any swapfile. If a "system
resource" is entirely depleted --- by launching too many apps, or by
"memory leak's from poorly written programs, or by running too many
16-bit programs (no resources in the 16-bit address space can be
recovered until ALL 16-bit programs are closed!) --- the OS will crash.

So, "Run lean and mean" to minimize this problem. Multitask only when
necessary. If one's work preferences / requirements are continually
hindered by low "system resources", the solution is to migrate to W2K or
XP. Launch the MS tool, Resource Meter, at Startup to monitor "system
resources". It uses almost none itself.

Upgrading to WINDOWS XP
HOME EDITION or PROFESSIONAL
Version 3.8 ? Last Updated August 27, 2002
by Gary Woodruff, MS-MVP
© 2001-2002 by Author, All Rights Reserved
http://www.aumha.org/a/xpupgrad.htm
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-04 MVP for Win9X / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
Your cooperation is appreciated.
____
"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:%232eoheQsDHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> FALSE
> More RAM = identical resources = same resource problems as before
> Less RAM = identical resources = same resource problems as before.
>
> The amount of RAM installed has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the
amount of
> resources available.
> --
> Mike Maltby MS-MVP
> mcmaltby@hotmail.com
>
>
> James Nipper <jnipper@nospam.fdn.com> wrote:
>
> > More memory should solve most all of these problems. I am surprise
> > another chap says more memory will not help resource problems.
> >
> > More ram = more resources = less resource problems.
> >
> >
> > The advice to monitor the startup items is good advice of course,
but more
> > memory will help you more than anthing, at least up to 512 megs of
ram.
> >
>
>