Thorsten Froehlich nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2005-10-04 12:17:
> Alain wrote:
> 
>> True if you run windows NT, 2000 or XP, also if using any Linux 
>> distro. FALSE if you use Win 95, 98, SE or ME! Win 9x memory 
>> management just suck.
> 
> 
> One word: nonsense.
> 
>     Thorsten
When you run win 9x, the OS DON'T keep track of the memory used by each applications
individualy, 
just the agragate useage. It don't know what application use what bit of memory!!!
Thus, when you 
force close an application, the OS can't free the memory that this application was
using. Under Win 
9x, each application MUST keep track of it's own memory useage and each application
must liberate 
that mamory when it no longer needs it.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
But I thought YOU did the backups...

Post a reply to this message

Alain wrote:
>>> True if you run windows NT, 2000 or XP, also if using any Linux 
>>> distro. FALSE if you use Win 95, 98, SE or ME! Win 9x memory 
>>> management just suck.
>>
>> One word: nonsense.
> 
> When you run win 9x, the OS DON'T keep track of the memory used by each 
> applications individualy, just the agragate useage. It don't know what 
> application use what bit of memory!!! Thus, when you force close an 
> application, the OS can't free the memory that this application was 
> using. Under Win 9x, each application MUST keep track of it's own memory 
> useage and each application must liberate that mamory when it no longer 
> needs it.

This is plain wrong and shows you don't know at all what is going on. It is 
clear you have no understanding of even the basics of what an operating 
system does or how it does it, and certainly not what any Windows operating 
system does or does not do.  In fact, you seem to have serious 
misconconceptions that show you know nothing about the topic making it 
impossible to explain it in a newsgroup.  If you are at all interested in 
the topic, I can only recommend you learn about it first.

This is after all not a matter of opinion but of the most basic facts.

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

Kenneth wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> 
>>Alain wrote:
>>
>>>True if you run windows NT, 2000 or XP, also if using any Linux distro.
>>>FALSE if you use Win 95, 98, SE or ME! Win 9x memory management just suck.
>>
>>One word: nonsense.
>
> Hmm... there seems to be a very interesting difference of opinion(s) here.
> : )

No, it isn't a matter of opinion, you do not need to worry.  The facts are 
clear and simple.  You just don't have to worry that terminating a regular 
program like POV-Ray the way you do will cause any damage or loss to your 
operating system of any kind.

	Thorsten Froehlich, POV-Team

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

> > Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

> > Hmm... there seems to be a very interesting difference of opinion(s) here.
> > : )
>
> No, it isn't a matter of opinion, you do not need to worry.  The facts are
> clear and simple.  You just don't have to worry that terminating a regular
> program like POV-Ray the way you do will cause any damage or loss to your
> operating system of any kind.
>
>  Thorsten Froehlich, POV-Team

 Ah, peace of mind has returned!  Thank you, Thorsten.

Wow, this topic seems to have brought to the fore a general misunderstanding
(certainly on my part) as to how POV deals with its host computer and OS.
What a lively discussion! My thanks again to all who have contributed.

Post a reply to this message

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> When you run win 9x, the OS DON'T keep track of the memory used by each applications
individualy, 
> just the agragate useage. It don't know what application use what bit of memory!!!
Thus, when you 
> force close an application, the OS can't free the memory that this application was
using. Under Win 
> 9x, each application MUST keep track of it's own memory useage and each application
must liberate 
> that mamory when it no longer needs it.

  And this information is based on what? Can you give me a reference?

  Perhaps you should actually read some documentation on how memory
management works in C-based operating systems (such as windows and unix).
Especially you should read about the concept of the heap (also knowing
what is the stack also helps).

  And by the way, in English when you use the third person singular it's
"doesn't", not "don't".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> True if you run windows NT, 2000 or XP, also if using any Linux distro. FALSE if you
use Win 95, 98, 
> SE or ME! Win 9x memory management just suck.

  I don't know of any operating system which could not automatically free
the memory used by a process when the process terminates.

  You see, programs have a heap where memory blocks are allocated. The program
asks the OS to grow the heap when it needs more memory. The OS naturally
knows where the heap of the process is and how big it is. When the process
terminates it just frees this heap.

  Programs have no way of "allocating" any memory bypassing the OS. That
would just cause a segmentation fault (this is enforced by the CPU).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I don't know of any operating system which could not automatically free
> the memory used by a process when the process terminates.

The original AmigaOS. Verix. Probably many embedded OSes.

It's more that the OSes are "multi-user" than they are "C-based". You 
have to clean up, or you risk disrupting other apps.

But it's true that Win98 recovers most resources after you kill a 
process. Certainly it doesn't leak any more memory than it normally 
would. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
    Neither rocks nor slush nor salted rims
    shall keep us from our appointed rounds.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> But it's true that Win98 recovers most resources after you kill a 
> process. Certainly it doesn't leak any more memory than it normally 
> would. ;-)

:-)

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>   And by the way, in English when you use the third person singular it's
> "doesn't", not "don't".
>

??? come now, you know that was a cheap shot.  With the facts
on your side, did you really need to resort to that?

--
jussi

Post a reply to this message

jute <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> ??? come now, you know that was a cheap shot.  With the facts
> on your side, did you really need to resort to that?

  Why is it that teaching others proper English is considered a bad thing?

  I personally don't mind that a repeating mistake of mine is corrected.
On the contrary, I'm always happy to learn.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message