Quote: "If Windows is handled anything like how older OS's are, then it stores the backdrop of each window, this allows it to quickly update the screen without needing to redraw all the windows behind one that has just been closed.
So if we do some math, assuming standard bitmap sizes of DWords per pixel and a window size of 1024x768... each one would take around 3million bytes, or 3mb, 3mb x 50 windows = 150mb, just for backbuffer images. Not very much in the long run, but it depends what else is stored for each window, possibly an active image for each, then the program workspace itself - I mean typing this post, Firefox is using 50mb of memory, multiply that by 50 copies and your talking around 2.5gb!"
Interesting. Did not know that older OSs did that.
But I made some more checks, and it seems that the "limit" is between 50-60 windows. I managed to have the Task Manager active by pressing "ctrl + alt + delete" before I spawned all those open folders, and when Firefox was not running, my RAM usage never rose above 400 mb... so it appears that it is not the memory that is the reason for this.
But also note that I´m talking about opening folders now, I do not have 50 instances of Firefox running.
Anyway, I read somewhere about the differences between how UNIX and old DOS would handle an input where the user, as an example, typed a command and then entered a paramiter like this one:
*.jpg
In UNIX it would run a the command for all .jpg files in the folder, each one would get an own instance, while DOS did something else (both ways had their advantages and disadvantages). Can it be something like that, that Windows handles processes in a way that creats some kind of limit with 50-60 windows (but that you gain in some other way), or is it something else?
Quote: "your hardware doesn't have a limit on it, the amount of memory used is split up for every process, for example if you are running linux on it with a xfce or another light weight windows manager then you will get more windows, say that in xfce each windowed process takes up about 2megs of ram and windows would take more, possible 4 or 5 megs, which would be the start of the limitation, plus the fact that most windows machines have hundreds of processes doing very little where as linux only has what is needed at that time - all processes take up memory and therefore windows whilst having all these idling processes is taking up memory that could be used for such things as creating a million windows"
Ok, might have used the wrong words. Meant that my memory and my processor should be able to handle more windows then they can, sorry for making that unclear.
EDIT:
Ok, that theory of mine seem to be quite far fetched, just don´t understand it...
Can anyone else try and see if you get the same result as me?
Darkness, you haunt me. If I give in, I would be an monster beyond imagining. Light, you guide me. Thanks to you, I see past the nothingness. Life, I choose to live in the light.
