[jhb_airlines] Re: FSX and Memory

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:29:14 -0000

My pet hate is programs that install a TSR to check for updates to the
program - Task Manager showed quite a few of these until I blocked them.
They could just as easily be part of the main program that checks each time
you start it rather than a permanent TSR. The one for my HP printer is still
eluding detection and is particularly annoying.

bones
bones@xxxxxxx
http://woodair.net


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Reynolds
Sent: 17 November 2008 20:34
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX and Memory

Indeed not.  In fact, if anything it's got worse.  These days programmers
always seem to think their particular piece of software is essential to the
user so memory usage should be no problem.  As systems have become more
powerful so has sloppy programming.  This has been aided by the use of OOP
(object Orientated Programming) where programmers will often rely on third
party visual programming software to take out the drudgery of analysing
code.  The real art of programming - to make efficient routines that do not
hog resources - is what sorts the men from the boys but to do that means
having to understand what's going on behind the compiler.  Unfortunately as
we go more and more OOP designers not worry about optimising until testing
(more and more these days by the public post release - saves costs) shows
it's a significant problem.  Of course you're then into the numbers game,
how many negative responses before you allocate resources, tidy up the code
(possibly adding functionality) and releasing a patch while claiming how
wonderfully responsive to customer needs you are!

Professional programmers mantra: get it working; get it out; tidy up if
necessary

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bones
Sent: 17 November 2008 20:12
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX and Memory

Some things never change do they?

On our early systems using Win3.1 and probably a 80486/25 machine the
constant worry was the 640k base memory limit. Trying to minimise TSR's was
always the problem and using FS required fiddling about with extended memory
managers (EMM386?)- especially for some of the esoteric add-ons like RMMFPW
or whatever.

bones
bones@xxxxxxx
http://woodair.net


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Reynolds
Sent: 17 November 2008 19:35
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX and Memory

Gerry,

You obviously have your system reasonably well configured and it shows in
the tests you've done.  

However, as we all know, not everyone has the skills to analyse their
set-ups and adjust settings to match.  As someone who has often been asked
to troubleshoot systems I can tell you that it's often an overload of TSR
(Terminate and Stay Resident) programmes that cause many of the headaches.
These range from anti-virus and firewalls to mobile phone/bluetooth drivers;
printer spoolers to messenger services (do I detest MSN)!  Each of these is
consuming those valuable resources.  

The usual way for IT support staff to handle this is to make sure they've
got enough headroom by maximising available resources and the simplest way
of doing that is to maximise available RAM.  That way when they've got half
a gig. of drivers loaded on a 2Gb system they still have enough to manage
any programme that makes a reasonable demand on the system.

Even within your results, you were using more than 2Gb of System Memory so
you can see why this is often a recommended option.

You also need to remember that reaching maximum for either system or
graphics memory means you are reaching the point where any further demand
cannot be handled.  The would result in system failure, whether it be a BSOD
of system lock up.  Therefore the headroom is essential.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 17 November 2008 18:47
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX and Memory

Ferry Interestink!

Throughout a FL310 flight from EGNS to Greenham Common, there was little 
variation in the amount of memory used; either System or Video Card. It 
coped with dense cloud, rain, photoscenery and AI, without breaking into 
a sweat. Ie, it never used more than 55% of SM or 64% of Video Memory.

If it's using so little memory, why do most people seem to benefit by 
maximising memory.

Baffled

Gerry Winskill

Gerry Winskill wrote:
> Thanks Denis.
> 
> I'm now aiting to turn onto the EGNS 26, in ASv7 pouring rain. Memstsus 
> shows Peak Useage at 53% and 1464. Task Manager virtually agrees.
> 
> Video Memory is peaking at 481Mb, 64%.
> 
> Meanwhile, System Information Total Physical Memory = 4,096 Mb and 
> Available Physical Memory as 1.34 Gb.
> 
> 
> They don't seem to agree. With XP seeing my 4Gb and the other two not.
> 
> HHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Gerry Winskill
> 
> Denis Ripley wrote:
>> Gerry,
>>
>> Google 'Memstatus'. Its a 10kb program which shows you how much memory 
>> you are using.
>>
>> Denis
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerry Winskill" <gwinsk@xxxxxxx>
>> To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:54 AM
>> Subject: [jhb_airlines] FSX and Memory
>>
>>
>>> Well, here I am, with 4Gb of memory now installed, trying to spot some
>>> worthwhile improvement. It might be marginaaly sharper in some areas but
>>> nothing that grabs me.
>>>
>>> So, how do I find how much memory FSX is actually using? Task Master
>>> doesn't seem to provide much.
>>>
>>> Gerry Winskill
>>>
>>
>>
>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1794 - Release Date: 
>> 11/17/2008 8:48 AM
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 





Other related posts: