RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

["LAURIE SOLOMON" <LAURIE@advancenet.net>]

The only caution that I would add is that not all memory despite the fact
that they are said to be compatible with a given motherboard or with other
DIMMs may not be and may act up in ways other than expected.  Apart of the
obvious differences between PC 100 and PC 133 RAM or ECC and non-ECC chips,
there are slight differences between manufacture's products which a finicky
mainboard and CPU might react to.  Alas, there are also CL1, CL2, and CL3
varieties of 168 pin PC133 DIMM sets of RAM which appear to have slightly
different timings which some systems do not work well with if you get the
wrong type or mix types.  I discovered this when I tried to install a couple
of 256MB PC133 CL2 chipsets into a system with a 256MB PC 100 CL1 chipset;
they did not work well together resulting in crashes and periodic slowdowns
in operations until I replaced the CL2 DIMMS with CL1 DIMMS.  This is just a
caution and some additional information for you in your evaluations.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 8:13 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


OK thanks Rob and Rafe for luring me to check the price of memory.  I
nearly fell off my chair - $68(australian) for 256MB so I bought two, and a
40G HDD as well what the hell I was trying to work out what to do to save
my over-full disks anyway.

I have just installed same, now have double the RAM and more than double
the HDD space after retiring a few bits.

As for "resources" this (below) is what I was trying to say and wanted
confirmed.  In fact, from the observation that System resources is always
the most pessimistic of User and GDI, I assume it is just an "overall"
figure and there are actually only two stacks involved.  Who knows... all I
know is that I run out of the damn things and it is very annoying, and I am
sure that my comparatively huge new memory will not change this one iota.

  Will report on effect of 768MB on my W98 system when I get time.  Looks
good so far, fingers crossed that I am one of the lucky ones.

Cheers,

Julian

At 12:38 28/07/01, you wrote:
>"Tony Sleep" <TonySleep@halftone.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500  Laurie Solomon
(laurie@advancenet.net)
> > wrote:
> > >  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.
> > AIUI Resources meter shows only useage of 3 internal OS stacks which are
>of
> > fixed size (System, User, GDI) and don't vary with RAM installed.
>
>Tony is correct.  The system resources have nothing to do with free RAM in
>general,
>only with available space within the fixed User, System and GDI blocks.
>
>Rob


Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia