Hi Ray,> <<I think you'll find that was down simply to resource allocations, not
> memory.>>
>
> Oh, okay, I'll bow to your greater knowledge but the tool quite clearly
> states "Physical Memory - Available". There are values shown for Kernel
> Memory and the size of the Page File (swap file) is also shown.
I think we're at cross-purposes here. I was referring to your comment about Win9x (or was it Me?) giving you lots of "out of memory" errors, whereas XP doesn't, so I was explaining that most all those sorts of errors on 9x (and Me) were down to tabulated resource handle space.
I know there are more professional looking tools for examining things in NT. There were similar tools in Win9x, but not so good, and this left the door open for more third party developers. But we weren't talking about tools, but O/S reliability and efficiency if you recall.
> <<I'm claiming that Win98SE, and only Win98SE, is/was the best (and for
> FS and most other such programs, the fastest) O/S Microsoft has yet
> produced.>>
>
> I think users of NT4 might contest that claim.
Not for FS they couldn't. Nor could they possibly claim it was fast. In fact it was slower at most things than any version of Windows, and that was because it was (rightly) so strict in enforcing the checks and protections at every layer. It was precisely these that they had to relax to get it as usable as Windows 9x in NT5, but in so doing they really did lose much of the reliability and protection benefits, with the results I am seeing here.
And anyway, I would stick up for OS/2 above NT any day! <G> I reckon OS/2 only "lost" because MS abandoned it in favour of NT in order to cash in on the locked in migration from Windows 3 which did a lot better than anyone had a right to expect considering how unreliable that was! <G>
Really it was a parallel to the Betamax vs VHS battle, and the better one lost. Ah well ...
Regards,
Pete
-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Peter L Dowson
-OLR.PL v1.81-