Jump to content

The 16bit heaps expander thread


Recommended Posts

1) Handle protection. 9x lacks proper GDI handle validation which may result in incorrect memory access or wrong

...

USER Salvation was explained before. In short, it saves >100 bytes per process by combining comctl32 classes with system classes. Not much, but you can run 60% more Notepad copies on clean system.

Tihiy, could you copy all these information to your first few posts of RP9? I think it necessary to let more people know the "resource salvation" side of RP9. There are still many people (like me) using Win98 heavily at work. System stability is very important to us

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I've just installed RP9. I did a full install. I am not using any skin, nor 32-bit icons at the moment, but I'm using ClearType. Here're my first impressions:

Before RP9, just after system startup: 57% USER resources & 82% GDI resources.

After RP9, just after system startup: 71% USER resources & 81% GDI resources.

And the resource drain is much slower, and resource recovery (after working for some time and then closing every aplication that was not open just after startup) is much better.

Wow! :w00t: Wonderful! :thumbup

Thanks a whole lot Tihiy! Keep on the great work! You rock! :thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Results reported by RetroOS on post #60 in the RP9 thread:

Okay, RP9 officially ROCKS! :thumbup

No change in GDI, but USER resources went UP 7% from no RP to after installing RP9!!!

That is so ultimately awesome!

It was the USER resources that I always had a problem with.

Testing so far is all good.[...]

I took the liberty to quote it here because it's relevant to this thread's main topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if your USER percentages go up that high, i have bad news for ya :wacko:

It can only mean that there's too much resource intensive apps are in startup.

No, no, it's GOOD news. They're talking about how much FREE resources they have. When they say resources went ''up'' by 7%, they mean 7% more free resources.

Queue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's bad news. Since percents are trimmed by amount of resources left after startup programs, it means those programs eat too much resources.

I saw 3% up max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if your USER percentages go up that high, i have bad news for ya :wacko:

It can only mean that there's too much resource intensive apps are in startup.

Sure, Tihiy!

But those are real-life configurations:

RetroOS machine's USER resources had a 7% free increase.

Mine own machine's USER resources had a 14% free increase.

Of course, I've got many real programs in start-up that do IMHO useful things, like Pop Up Killer 1.45.5, HDDHealth 2.1 and Disk Space Monitor 1.0b4 ... At any moment, from start-up onwards, I have at least 16 icons in the system tray. I've trimmed my start-up configuration to the limit. I can't do without any of the programs in the tray. I need the things they do.

Now you know why we are talking about "Heaps Expansion" since 2007... Of course, now the name of the subject might as well be changed to "Resources Salvation". :thumbup But these real-life examples illustrate well the situation: even little improvements in resource management lead to impressive results, because people run many real programs from start-up onwards. Thanks to your efforts, our systems are much better now. You do rock!

Edited by dencorso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's bad news. Since percents are trimmed by amount of resources left after startup programs, it means those programs eat too much resources.

I saw 3% up max.

Ahhh, now I understand.

And dencorso... your system tray is an abomination. ^_^ Mine has two icons, and that's two too-many. The speaker icon (which I leave just so I always have one thing, because truthfully an empty system tray is weird) and ZoneAlarm. The only other thing I have run at startup is TweakUI.

Queue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And dencorso... your system tray is an abomination. ^_^ Mine has two icons, and that's two too-many. The speaker icon (which I leave just so I always have one thing, because truthfully an empty system tray is weird) and ZoneAlarm. The only other thing I have run at startup is TweakUI.

Yes, I know! :P Then again, my system is quite stable, and before RP9 I already had > 40h uptimes easily...

Now it's bound to be even better, because it was the resources that usually caused me to reboot.

BTW, I do run Tweak UI, too. I didn't mention it because it doesn't add any icon to the tray, so I forgot about it.

And I do run the much maligned Norton Crash Guard, that never gave me any grief, and time and again helped me avoid a reboot. ;) Here, however, YMMV aplies, of course! :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi folks!

Just to get my 7% USER resources increase in perspective...

Without RP or UberSkin, I had 77% USER resources free and 97% GDI resources free...

I always trim down unneeded startup apps.

With RP9 installed, I get 84% USER resources free and 97-98% GDI resources free (It sits at 97%, but sometimes it's 98% - I never saw it above 97% without RP9...)

I know Tihiy thinks this kind of increase is bad (from a technical viewpoint), but I think it's good!

So, to conclude, it would appear that RP9 is doing good things by freeing wasted resources. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about the GDI resources limit while reading this thread from the beginning. There are many opinions telling it can not be done.

My conclusion is, it was done somehow in Windows 2000. Since the same applications are working in Windows 2000 and 98, it should be possible to increase the resource limit in 98 without recompilation of the user applications.

I would like to know how Windows 2000 does manage the GDI resources. And where is the difference from the Windows 98 point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

My conclusion is, it was done somehow in Windows 2000. Since the same applications are working in Windows 2000 and 98, it should be possible to increase the resource limit in 98 without recompilation of the user applications.

...

That is exactly what has been bugging me for years!

Windows 2000 onwards will run many of the apps that run on 9x.

However, they don't have the same kind of resources issues.

So... It is technically possible...

Whether it could be done is quite another problem.

I expect it would require extensive modifications to the Windows kernel...

Edited by RetroOS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is exactly what has been bugging me for years!

Windows 2000 onwards will run many of the apps that run on 9x.

However, they don't have the same kind of resources issues.

So... It is technically possible...

Wrong analogy. There are also plenty apps that run on w2k and onwards but will never run on win9x by design. Kernel modifications like KernelEx don't change this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...