OpenEuphoria

Re: win32 and win98

• Posted by munchr at mac.com Aug 02, 2003
• 524 views

If anyone has ever wondered about resource limits in windows, check
these MSKB links.

MS Windows 3.1 limits:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;90762

MS Windows 9.x limits:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q190/2/17.ASP

Basically, in Windows 3.x - 9x, there are hard coded limits to
the number of windows, buttons, menus, etc. that can be loaded
into memory.  These limits CANNOT be increased.  Windows NT
versions are able to dynamically increase these limits as needed
for 32bit programs.  (16bit programs still have hard coded limits
for compatability reasons).

For a decent side by side comparison chart of the 3 windows
product families, see:
http://www.windows-help.net/techfiles/win-resources.html

James Powell

At 05:58 AM 02/08/2003, Travis Beaty wrote:
> > Good grief... the NT/2K/XP line has always been superior to the 9x/ME
> > line for many reasons (and also a good reason for discontinuing the
> > latter).  However, this is not the proper forum to discuss such things.
>
>Yes.  However, this is the proper forum, last time I knew, to discuss
>Euphoria libraries such as win32lib.ew, and which platforms it runs and does
>not run on.  This entire thread began because folks were trying to figure
>out where this resource problem occurs.  It occurs with Windows 98 and ME,
>probably not with 95, and so far not with XP.  Using a little bit of
>deductive reasoning, we then need to ask the question, "What are the
>differences between XP and ME which could account for the system resource
>problems?"  The answer to that question will help Derek in his search for
>the problem.
>
>I have as much a right to state my opinions of Windows ME as you have to
>state your opinions about my stating my opinions, and your opinions about
>Irv's opionion of my opinion.  That is, of course, just my opinion.