[Xitami] Xitami too harddisk intensive..

[Paul Reid]

> w98 reports about 84Megs allocated, 

WHAT ???

To some degree, that's bogus. Win9x will "allocate" all the RAM and swap
it can find, even if it does not have anything useful to put in that
space. 

But I've seen win95 run fairly quietly in 16Megs, and not gasp too loud
in 8Megs. I know Win98se is bigger, and 28M is way below what most
people like, but 84 megs? And less thrashing if Xitami is stopped? 

>  what's the xitami footprint on the memory?

500 Kb to 4 Megs, more or less, depending. I have run Xitami on a _4_Meg
machine without crowding (but that was Windows 3!). 

BUT note that the "Graphical Interface" version of Win32 Xitami has a
known memory leak or something. I've only used the Command Line or
Service versions so I don't know the details. 

WinNT has a better Monitor than Win9x. It shows, on my main machine, up
for 8 days and fairly busy:

Mem usage - 3,345 K (varies a little)
VM size - 1,812 K

The machine has 128 Megs RAM (RAM was cheap that day) but NT only shows
35 Megs in use now, 36 Megs peak commit charge. 8 Megs goes to RealAudio
server; about 4 megs to my remote control app. When I ran in 32 megs
without those two apps, it often sat at 24 to 28 megs in use.

Total memory shows as "351M" which suggests I have Swap set to 220 Megs.
(Frankly, if this machine EVER swaps it probably means something has
gone very wrong... but when cleaning out cluttered log folders sometimes
the filesystem needs a lot of workspace.)

 -PRR