david@cullsj.UUCP (David Taylor) (04/29/89)
I have a AT clone that uses the NEAT ChipSet with built-in LIM EMS 4.0 support and 1MB on board. On boot, the EMS driver reports 640K conventional memory and 384K expanded. In Windows 2.10, the About Windows window also shows 384K expanded memory. Yet, Windows constantly warns that it is running out of memory, or insufficient memory to run an application. When the warnings appear About Windows shows less than 32K conventional memory and 320K expanded still available! It seems that no more than 64K of the expanded is ever used by Windows. The applications I'm running are just the Windows applications (Write, etc.) and Actor. Can anyone help me?
cem@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Malloy) (04/30/89)
From article <558@cullsj.UUCP>, by david@cullsj.UUCP (David Taylor): > > I have a AT clone that uses the NEAT ChipSet with built-in LIM EMS 4.0 > support and 1MB on board. On boot, the EMS driver reports 640K conventional > memory and 384K expanded. In Windows 2.10, the About Windows window also > shows 384K expanded memory. Yet, Windows constantly warns that it is running > out of memory, or insufficient memory to run an application. > When the warnings appear About Windows shows less than 32K conventional > memory and 320K expanded still available! It seems that no more than 64K of the > expanded is ever used by Windows. The applications I'm running are just > the Windows applications (Write, etc.) and Actor. > > Can anyone help me? In my limited experience, I have learned one very important fact: Windows/286 controls the memory! I don't like this and I have found a way around it. When you start Windows/286, use the "-n" option. I can find nothing in the manual, but Adobe told me about it in their manual. From what they said, If you enter "win -n", Windows/286 will give all free memory (conventional, extended, expanded) to the program. Clancy Malloy
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (05/01/89)
>I have a AT clone that uses the NEAT ChipSet with built-in LIM EMS 4.0 >support and 1MB on board. On boot, the EMS driver reports 640K conventional >memory and 384K expanded. In Windows 2.10, the About Windows window also >shows 384K expanded memory. Yet, Windows constantly warns that it is running >out of memory, or insufficient memory to run an application. >When the warnings appear About Windows shows less than 32K conventional >memory and 320K expanded still available! It seems that no more than 64K of the >expanded is ever used by Windows. The applications I'm running are just >the Windows applications (Write, etc.) and Actor. >Can anyone help me? Yes, of course, Microsoft can help you! They can rewrite Windows so it is not such a memory hog. Windows 2.10 and the programs supplied with it don't use expanded memory AT ALL. Apparently Actor doesn't either. It IS possible to write a Windows program that uses expanded memory just like any regular program does.
philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) (05/04/89)
In article <68600020@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > >>When the warnings appear About Windows shows less than 32K conventional >>memory and 320K expanded still available! It seems that no more than 64K of the >>expanded is ever used by Windows. The applications I'm running are just >>the Windows applications (Write, etc.) and Actor. > >>Can anyone help me? >Yes, of course, Microsoft can help you! They can rewrite Windows so >it is not such a memory hog. > >Windows 2.10 and the programs supplied with it don't use expanded memory >AT ALL. Apparently Actor doesn't either. It IS possible to write a >Windows program that uses expanded memory just like any regular >program does. false, patently false. rtfm. expanded memory is a complex issue because there are a large number of configurations possible but MS Windows does indeed use and support expanded memory. Its described in tfm. Any follow-ups or flames should be directed to comp.windows.ms As for the original question, I believe that a recent version of actor supports expanded memory but you should call whitewater group for specific details.
david@cullsj.UUCP (David Taylor) (05/04/89)
In article <5649@microsoft.UUCP>, philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) writes: > > false, patently false. rtfm. > > Its described in tfm. > > As for the original question > > call whitewater group Yes, some stuff has been deleted, but you'd never miss it. We don't seem to subscribe to comp.windows.ms here, so I must reply here and hope it reaches you. First of all, there's not enough time nor space to detail all the things wrong with tfm. Let me just say it stinks. No master index, no Quick-Guide for advanced users, too many cross-references, etc. It makes me ill to even discuss it. When software manuals are no longer of help, I consult Usenet. In my experience, the expertise here exceeds that of most tech support groups, and I don't have to listen to Lawrence Welk while I'm on hold. And when an employee of the vendor of the problem software enters the Net discussion, and can only say it's a "complex issue", "rtfm", and call the other software vendor, I consider it validation of my opinion that the Net is more helpful than most vendors (provided we can keep certain vendors off the Net). Is it significant that you did not include a disclaimer? Here's mine: My opinions are mine, not theirs.
philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) (05/06/89)
In article <560@cullsj.UUCP> david@cullsj.UUCP (David Taylor) writes: >In article <5649@microsoft.UUCP>, philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) writes: >> >> false, patently false. rtfm. >> >> Its described in tfm. >> >> As for the original question >> >> call whitewater group > >Yes, some stuff has been deleted, but you'd never miss it. > >When software manuals are no longer of help, I consult Usenet. In my >experience, the expertise here exceeds that of most tech support groups, >and I don't have to listen to Lawrence Welk while I'm on hold. >And when an employee of the vendor of the problem software enters the >Net discussion, and can only say it's a "complex issue", "rtfm", and >call the other software vendor, I consider it validation of my opinion >that the Net is more helpful than most vendors (provided we can keep >certain vendors off the Net). > >Is it significant that you did not include a disclaimer? >Here's mine: > >My opinions are mine, not theirs. Try to be a little helpfull and what do you get? sheesh. First off, I was not responding to your statement when I said rtfm. The gent who responded to your question made a completely false statement about ms windows, I suggested that he be aware of the facts before responding (especially which such vehemence). secondly. you are right, I should have included a disclaimer. I do so at the end. Thirdly, the gist of your question was about using expanded memory and specifically, Actor. I still suggest you call them because I believe they have a new version that takes advantage of ems. Why is this a vacuous statement? If I were in your position, I would be happy to find this out. Or perhaps you'd rather not know so you can bitch in public? Fourthly, have you called MS support? They understand this stuff in detail. Yes, ems is a complex issue but they can take you through a number of steps to ensure that Windows is taking best possible advantage of ems. I never said don't put your question on Usenet. What makes you think I did? Fifthly, I'd like to see how you plan to `keep certain vendors off the net'. Does a site have to take special test (Usenet Access Request Form 37-234A: Vendor Access to Usenet, Specific Test for Non-Bias, SW Supplier SubSection). The above is opinions are mine and not those of my employer.