Win9x OS and Antiviral Software??

[NewsReader2k]

Anyone know of any antiviral software that will run on Win9x operating
systems with 128mb RAM and a 500 GHz or less Processor?

Increasing the RAM on these systems is usless because Win9x systems cannot
utilize more than 128 MB.

I've done clean installs of the Win9x Operating Systems and all is well
until I install the latest versions of Norton or Mcafee antiviral software.

The system slows down to an unacceptable crawl.

I know that there is other antiviral software out there; I'm looking for one
that's not so intrusive and will run on older systems.

Any feedback on this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Thx

[Noel Paton]

Win 9x systems can use up to 1GB with very few problems!
Norton will kill Win9x systems sooner or later - try using AVG or Avast!
instead

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"NewsReader2k" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone know of any antiviral software that will run on Win9x operating
> systems with 128mb RAM and a 500 GHz or less Processor?
>
> Increasing the RAM on these systems is usless because Win9x systems cannot
> utilize more than 128 MB.
>
> I've done clean installs of the Win9x Operating Systems and all is well
> until I install the latest versions of Norton or Mcafee antiviral
> software.
>
> The system slows down to an unacceptable crawl.
>
> I know that there is other antiviral software out there; I'm looking for
> one that's not so intrusive and will run on older systems.
>
> Any feedback on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thx
>
>

[Mike M]

> Increasing the RAM on these systems is usless because Win9x systems
> cannot utilize more than 128 MB.

Where do you get such information from? This is completely untrue. Win
9x systems can handle up to 2GB of RAM although some tweaking is required
when more than 512MB is installed and there can be other problems if more
than 1GB is present.

> The system slows down to an unacceptable crawl.

To be expected if one installs malware branded by Norton or Symantec.
McAfee is a bit better but there are far better options in the AV area
than either of these two products.
--
Mike Maltby



NewsReader2k > wrote:

> Anyone know of any antiviral software that will run on Win9x operating
> systems with 128mb RAM and a 500 GHz or less Processor?
>
> Increasing the RAM on these systems is usless because Win9x systems
> cannot utilize more than 128 MB.
>
> I've done clean installs of the Win9x Operating Systems and all is
> well until I install the latest versions of Norton or Mcafee
> antiviral software.
> The system slows down to an unacceptable crawl.
>
> I know that there is other antiviral software out there; I'm looking
> for one that's not so intrusive and will run on older systems.
>
> Any feedback on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thx

[NewsReader2k]

Thank You for you quick response.

I will try one or both of those antiviral software's.

I knew that Win9x systems can "read" between 1.0 and 1.5 GHz of RAM.

I've noticed that the "Performance/System Resources" on Win9x systems will
not change with any amount RAM higher than 128 MB, no matter how much extra
is added.

This led me to believe that those systems can "read" but not 'utilize"
higher RAM.

Either I'm reading too much into the meaning of the "Performance/System
Resources" tab on Win9x systems, or there is a configuration that I'm not
aware of, which will allow "utilization" of higher RAM.

If this is the case please let me know.

Thx.

"Noel Paton" > wrote in message
...
> Win 9x systems can use up to 1GB with very few problems!
> Norton will kill Win9x systems sooner or later - try using AVG or Avast!
> instead
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
> "NewsReader2k" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Anyone know of any antiviral software that will run on Win9x operating
>> systems with 128mb RAM and a 500 GHz or less Processor?
>>
>> Increasing the RAM on these systems is usless because Win9x systems
>> cannot utilize more than 128 MB.
>>
>> I've done clean installs of the Win9x Operating Systems and all is well
>> until I install the latest versions of Norton or Mcafee antiviral
>> software.
>>
>> The system slows down to an unacceptable crawl.
>>
>> I know that there is other antiviral software out there; I'm looking for
>> one that's not so intrusive and will run on older systems.
>>
>> Any feedback on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thx
>>
>>
>
>

[Mike Cawood, HND BIT]

"NewsReader2k" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone know of any antiviral software that will run on Win9x operating
> systems with 128mb RAM and a 500 GHz or less Processor?
>
> Increasing the RAM on these systems is usless because Win9x systems
cannot
> utilize more than 128 MB.
>
Really!! My Win ME PC has & was supplied with 256MB of RAM.
Perhaps you need to engage brain before reposting.
Regards Mike.

[Noel Paton]

Windows can only use the amount of RAM that the programs you're running
need - although caching of programs will take place when there is more RAM
available, it will not affect the speed of the program, unless the actual
program runs out of space in RAM.
The number of programs and what type they are, will affect the amount of RAM
needed - for Win9x, it's rare for more than 128MB of RAM to be used, unless
you're doing some fairly heavy-duty graphics or database work.
The way to test whether RAM would increase performance is to check on the
amount of Virtual Memory in use - NOT the amount allocated. In a system with
sufficient RAM, the 'in use' figure will be usually below 20MB - with
insufficient RAM, the number can go up to 2GB.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"NewsReader2k" > wrote in message
...
> Thank You for you quick response.
>
> I will try one or both of those antiviral software's.
>
> I knew that Win9x systems can "read" between 1.0 and 1.5 GHz of RAM.
>
> I've noticed that the "Performance/System Resources" on Win9x systems will
> not change with any amount RAM higher than 128 MB, no matter how much
> extra is added.
>
> This led me to believe that those systems can "read" but not 'utilize"
> higher RAM.
>
> Either I'm reading too much into the meaning of the "Performance/System
> Resources" tab on Win9x systems, or there is a configuration that I'm not
> aware of, which will allow "utilization" of higher RAM.
>
> If this is the case please let me know.
>
> Thx.
>
> "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Win 9x systems can use up to 1GB with very few problems!
>> Norton will kill Win9x systems sooner or later - try using AVG or Avast!
>> instead
>>
>> --
>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>>
>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>
>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>> "NewsReader2k" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Anyone know of any antiviral software that will run on Win9x operating
>>> systems with 128mb RAM and a 500 GHz or less Processor?
>>>
>>> Increasing the RAM on these systems is usless because Win9x systems
>>> cannot utilize more than 128 MB.
>>>
>>> I've done clean installs of the Win9x Operating Systems and all is well
>>> until I install the latest versions of Norton or Mcafee antiviral
>>> software.
>>>
>>> The system slows down to an unacceptable crawl.
>>>
>>> I know that there is other antiviral software out there; I'm looking for
>>> one that's not so intrusive and will run on older systems.
>>>
>>> Any feedback on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thx
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[NewsReader2k]

Thank You for your time and patience with this matter.

This has really peaked my interest; apparently I have been misunderstanding
the "System Resources" percentage figures on Win9x systems all along.

Where do I find the "Virtual Memory in use" figures on a Win9x system?

Thx

"Noel Paton" > wrote in message
...
> Windows can only use the amount of RAM that the programs you're running
> need - although caching of programs will take place when there is more RAM
> available, it will not affect the speed of the program, unless the actual
> program runs out of space in RAM.
> The number of programs and what type they are, will affect the amount of
> RAM needed - for Win9x, it's rare for more than 128MB of RAM to be used,
> unless you're doing some fairly heavy-duty graphics or database work.
> The way to test whether RAM would increase performance is to check on the
> amount of Virtual Memory in use - NOT the amount allocated. In a system
> with sufficient RAM, the 'in use' figure will be usually below 20MB - with
> insufficient RAM, the number can go up to 2GB.
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
> "NewsReader2k" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thank You for you quick response.
>>
>> I will try one or both of those antiviral software's.
>>
>> I knew that Win9x systems can "read" between 1.0 and 1.5 GHz of RAM.
>>
>> I've noticed that the "Performance/System Resources" on Win9x systems
>> will not change with any amount RAM higher than 128 MB, no matter how
>> much extra is added.
>>
>> This led me to believe that those systems can "read" but not 'utilize"
>> higher RAM.
>>
>> Either I'm reading too much into the meaning of the "Performance/System
>> Resources" tab on Win9x systems, or there is a configuration that I'm not
>> aware of, which will allow "utilization" of higher RAM.
>>
>> If this is the case please let me know.
>>
>> Thx.
>>
>> "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Win 9x systems can use up to 1GB with very few problems!
>>> Norton will kill Win9x systems sooner or later - try using AVG or Avast!
>>> instead
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>>>
>>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>>> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>>
>>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
>>> NG's
>>> "NewsReader2k" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Anyone know of any antiviral software that will run on Win9x operating
>>>> systems with 128mb RAM and a 500 GHz or less Processor?
>>>>
>>>> Increasing the RAM on these systems is usless because Win9x systems
>>>> cannot utilize more than 128 MB.
>>>>
>>>> I've done clean installs of the Win9x Operating Systems and all is well
>>>> until I install the latest versions of Norton or Mcafee antiviral
>>>> software.
>>>>
>>>> The system slows down to an unacceptable crawl.
>>>>
>>>> I know that there is other antiviral software out there; I'm looking
>>>> for one that's not so intrusive and will run on older systems.
>>>>
>>>> Any feedback on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Thx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Noel Paton]

System Monitor - use the Memory Manager. "Swapfile in Use" display to see
how much VM is in use.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"NewsReader2k" > wrote in message
...
> Thank You for your time and patience with this matter.
>
> This has really peaked my interest; apparently I have been
> misunderstanding the "System Resources" percentage figures on Win9x
> systems all along.
>
> Where do I find the "Virtual Memory in use" figures on a Win9x system?
>
> Thx
>
> "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Windows can only use the amount of RAM that the programs you're running
>> need - although caching of programs will take place when there is more
>> RAM available, it will not affect the speed of the program, unless the
>> actual program runs out of space in RAM.
>> The number of programs and what type they are, will affect the amount of
>> RAM needed - for Win9x, it's rare for more than 128MB of RAM to be used,
>> unless you're doing some fairly heavy-duty graphics or database work.
>> The way to test whether RAM would increase performance is to check on the
>> amount of Virtual Memory in use - NOT the amount allocated. In a system
>> with sufficient RAM, the 'in use' figure will be usually below 20MB -
>> with insufficient RAM, the number can go up to 2GB.
>>
>> --
>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>>
>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>
>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>> "NewsReader2k" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Thank You for you quick response.
>>>
>>> I will try one or both of those antiviral software's.
>>>
>>> I knew that Win9x systems can "read" between 1.0 and 1.5 GHz of RAM.
>>>
>>> I've noticed that the "Performance/System Resources" on Win9x systems
>>> will not change with any amount RAM higher than 128 MB, no matter how
>>> much extra is added.
>>>
>>> This led me to believe that those systems can "read" but not 'utilize"
>>> higher RAM.
>>>
>>> Either I'm reading too much into the meaning of the "Performance/System
>>> Resources" tab on Win9x systems, or there is a configuration that I'm
>>> not aware of, which will allow "utilization" of higher RAM.
>>>
>>> If this is the case please let me know.
>>>
>>> Thx.
>>>
>>> "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Win 9x systems can use up to 1GB with very few problems!
>>>> Norton will kill Win9x systems sooner or later - try using AVG or
>>>> Avast! instead
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>>>>
>>>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>>>> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>>>
>>>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
>>>> NG's
>>>> "NewsReader2k" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Anyone know of any antiviral software that will run on Win9x operating
>>>>> systems with 128mb RAM and a 500 GHz or less Processor?
>>>>>
>>>>> Increasing the RAM on these systems is usless because Win9x systems
>>>>> cannot utilize more than 128 MB.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've done clean installs of the Win9x Operating Systems and all is
>>>>> well until I install the latest versions of Norton or Mcafee antiviral
>>>>> software.
>>>>>
>>>>> The system slows down to an unacceptable crawl.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that there is other antiviral software out there; I'm looking
>>>>> for one that's not so intrusive and will run on older systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any feedback on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[NewsReader2k]

"Where do you get such information from? This is completely untrue. Win
9x systems can handle up to 2GB of RAM although some tweaking is required "


I came to this conclusion based of my experiments with the
"Performance/System Resources" percentage figures and increasing RAM on
Win9x systems.

I noticed that no matter how much RAM I added to a system over 128 MB, the
"Performance/System Resource" figure would not change nor were there any
system performance increase.

I realize now that assumption is incorrect, based on Noel Patterson's
response.

I'm aware that modifying the line to the [386enh] section of the System.ini
file:
MaxPhysPage=40000

This will allow Win9x systems to function with 1.5 Gigs of RAM or higher
installed.

I actually run a dual boot gaming system with WinME/WinXP Home and 4 Gigs of
RAM installed.

I laughed at your reference to Norton as "malware", It's so true.

Thx

"Mike M" > wrote in message
...
>> Increasing the RAM on these systems is usless because Win9x systems
>> cannot utilize more than 128 MB.
>
> Where do you get such information from? This is completely untrue. Win
> 9x systems can handle up to 2GB of RAM although some tweaking is required
> when more than 512MB is installed and there can be other problems if more
> than 1GB is present.
>
>> The system slows down to an unacceptable crawl.
>
> To be expected if one installs malware branded by Norton or Symantec.
> McAfee is a bit better but there are far better options in the AV area
> than either of these two products.
> --
> Mike Maltby
>
>
>
> NewsReader2k > wrote:
>
>> Anyone know of any antiviral software that will run on Win9x operating
>> systems with 128mb RAM and a 500 GHz or less Processor?
>>
>> Increasing the RAM on these systems is usless because Win9x systems
>> cannot utilize more than 128 MB.
>>
>> I've done clean installs of the Win9x Operating Systems and all is
>> well until I install the latest versions of Norton or Mcafee
>> antiviral software.
>> The system slows down to an unacceptable crawl.
>>
>> I know that there is other antiviral software out there; I'm looking
>> for one that's not so intrusive and will run on older systems.
>>
>> Any feedback on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thx
>

[NewsReader2k]

Thank you so much..



Your responses have been very helpful and insightful.



I installed and configured the Memory Manager as you suggested, and I was
not aware the Win9x system had such detailed and accurate system monitoring
tools.



It's great when someone understands the questions being asked and responds
with useful information.



Thx again.



Peace



"Noel Paton" > wrote in message
...
> System Monitor - use the Memory Manager. "Swapfile in Use" display to see
> how much VM is in use.
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
> "NewsReader2k" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thank You for your time and patience with this matter.
>>
>> This has really peaked my interest; apparently I have been
>> misunderstanding the "System Resources" percentage figures on Win9x
>> systems all along.
>>
>> Where do I find the "Virtual Memory in use" figures on a Win9x system?
>>
>> Thx
>>
>> "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Windows can only use the amount of RAM that the programs you're running
>>> need - although caching of programs will take place when there is more
>>> RAM available, it will not affect the speed of the program, unless the
>>> actual program runs out of space in RAM.
>>> The number of programs and what type they are, will affect the amount of
>>> RAM needed - for Win9x, it's rare for more than 128MB of RAM to be used,
>>> unless you're doing some fairly heavy-duty graphics or database work.
>>> The way to test whether RAM would increase performance is to check on
>>> the amount of Virtual Memory in use - NOT the amount allocated. In a
>>> system with sufficient RAM, the 'in use' figure will be usually below
>>> 20MB - with insufficient RAM, the number can go up to 2GB.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>>>
>>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>>> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>>
>>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
>>> NG's
>>> "NewsReader2k" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Thank You for you quick response.
>>>>
>>>> I will try one or both of those antiviral software's.
>>>>
>>>> I knew that Win9x systems can "read" between 1.0 and 1.5 GHz of RAM.
>>>>
>>>> I've noticed that the "Performance/System Resources" on Win9x systems
>>>> will not change with any amount RAM higher than 128 MB, no matter how
>>>> much extra is added.
>>>>
>>>> This led me to believe that those systems can "read" but not 'utilize"
>>>> higher RAM.
>>>>
>>>> Either I'm reading too much into the meaning of the "Performance/System
>>>> Resources" tab on Win9x systems, or there is a configuration that I'm
>>>> not aware of, which will allow "utilization" of higher RAM.
>>>>
>>>> If this is the case please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Thx.
>>>>
>>>> "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Win 9x systems can use up to 1GB with very few problems!
>>>>> Norton will kill Win9x systems sooner or later - try using AVG or
>>>>> Avast! instead
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>>>>>
>>>>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>>>>> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>>>>
>>>>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
>>>>> NG's
>>>>> "NewsReader2k" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Anyone know of any antiviral software that will run on Win9x
>>>>>> operating systems with 128mb RAM and a 500 GHz or less Processor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Increasing the RAM on these systems is usless because Win9x systems
>>>>>> cannot utilize more than 128 MB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've done clean installs of the Win9x Operating Systems and all is
>>>>>> well until I install the latest versions of Norton or Mcafee
>>>>>> antiviral software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The system slows down to an unacceptable crawl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that there is other antiviral software out there; I'm looking
>>>>>> for one that's not so intrusive and will run on older systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any feedback on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thx
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Mike M]

The tweak required is not MaxPhysPage but rather setting vcache=512000
where more than 512MB of RAM is installed otherwise the system runs out of
upper memory address space. It is only necessary to limit MaxPhysPage
where, as you say, RAM exceeds 1.5GB but for many systems 1GB is the
maximum RAM that can be used.

For more details see:
KB 253912 - ""Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM
Installed" (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=253912). The reason is that
allocating more than 512MB of RAM to vcache will exhaust all available
upper memory addresses and thus prevent them being used for other
purposes. This problem is easily fixed by limiting vcache to 512MB.

MS KB 296773 - "Computer May Not Hibernate with More Than 192 MB of
Memory"
(http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=296773). This makes reference to an
updated file vmm.vxd. Contact Microsoft, explain the problem, and mention
296773 and you should be given details of how to obtain the patch and the
password of the day. Note that there should be no support charge for this
call other than for any telecom charges incurred in ringing Microsoft.

MS KB 304943 - "Computer May Reboot Continuously with More Than 1.5 GB of
RAM" (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=304943).

Turning to System Resources you might want to have a look at Jim
Eshelman's "SYSTEM
RESOURCES FAQ" (http://www.aumha.org/win4/a/resource.htm).
--
Mike Maltby



NewsReader2k > wrote:

> "Where do you get such information from? This is completely untrue. Win
> 9x systems can handle up to 2GB of RAM although some tweaking is
> required "
>
> I came to this conclusion based of my experiments with the
> "Performance/System Resources" percentage figures and increasing RAM
> on Win9x systems.
>
> I noticed that no matter how much RAM I added to a system over 128
> MB, the "Performance/System Resource" figure would not change nor
> were there any system performance increase.
>
> I realize now that assumption is incorrect, based on Noel Patterson's
> response.
>
> I'm aware that modifying the line to the [386enh] section of the
> System.ini file:
> MaxPhysPage=40000
>
> This will allow Win9x systems to function with 1.5 Gigs of RAM or
> higher installed.
>
> I actually run a dual boot gaming system with WinME/WinXP Home and 4
> Gigs of RAM installed.
>
> I laughed at your reference to Norton as "malware", It's so true.

[Ron Martell]

"NewsReader2k" > wrote:

> Thank You for you quick response.
>
>I will try one or both of those antiviral software's.
>
>I knew that Win9x systems can "read" between 1.0 and 1.5 GHz of RAM.
>
>I've noticed that the "Performance/System Resources" on Win9x systems will
>not change with any amount RAM higher than 128 MB, no matter how much extra
>is added.
>
>This led me to believe that those systems can "read" but not 'utilize"
>higher RAM.
>
>Either I'm reading too much into the meaning of the "Performance/System
>Resources" tab on Win9x systems, or there is a configuration that I'm not
>aware of, which will allow "utilization" of higher RAM.
>
> If this is the case please let me know.
>

System Resources refers to two 64K blocks of memory that Windows
allocates to programs for tracking purposes. These blocks are called
User Resources and GDI Resources respectively and Windows reports
whichever has the least available free space as the value for "Free
System Resources".

The value of Free System Resources should not be a concern unless and
until you start getting "System Resources are getting low" type
warning messages, which generally happens at about the 10% level. In
test circumstances it has been shown possible for a computer to
operate at full performance with System Resources showing zero percent
free.

System Resources are totally unrelated to the amount of RAM installed
in your computer and adding more RAM will not affect the System
Resources (unless you start running more applications because you have
more RAM).

System Resource usage is determined by the number and type of
applications that you have running on the computer. Certain types of
applications have been shown to be especially demanding in terms of
System Resource usage:
- "Eye and Ear Candy" such as Active Desktop View As Web Page,
sound effect schemes, animated mouse cursors and desktop icons, and
fancy screen savers.
- Web browsers, as each open browser window requires additional
resources.
- Multimedia applications of all types
- System monitoring utilities such as Norton SystemWorks.

If you are using any applications that have the ability to "preview
fonts in fonts list" such as Office 2000 then all of the installed
fonts will be loaded into GDI resources when the application is
launched. This will result in the usage of approximately 1% of GDI
resources for each 64 fonts that are installed. If no such
applications are in use, or if the "preview fonts in fonts list" is
turned off then resources will only be consumed by those fonts that
have actually been used by windows or by an application.

If you are running any 16 bit applications (Windows 3.x) then Windows
95/98/Me will treat the System Resources allocated to all of these
applications as one block and will not release any of them for reuse
unless and until all of the open 16 bit applications have been closed.

Also, when an application is loaded it is quite common that it will
also require some additional Windows components to be loaded as well.
However, when that application is closed Windows will, by design,
retain the Windows components because they are likely to be needed
again. Therefore the resources initially allocated when an
application is opened will not all be released when that application
is closed. Most, but not all.

Footnote:
To be absolutely technically correct, there are 5 System Resource
heaps not just 2, the two 16 bit 64K ones plus three 32 bit ones. The
32 bit ones are big enough so that there has never been a documented
instance of resource usage problems caused by them, so it is simpler
to pretend they do not exist and just focus on the two 64K resource
heaps when troubleshooting system resource related problems.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."