Re: FPW on a 3.0GHz P4 - will it work?
From: Lee Mitchell (Leemi_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:02:37 GMT
I am sorry none of my troubleshooting steps helped. I gave it my best shot.
Have you tried posting this in the FoxPro 2.x discussion section of the VFP
forum on www.universalthread.com? There seem to be a lot of smart,
experienced people on that forum and maybe someone there has an answer that
allows you to run on XP. If you get an answer, it would be worth your
You might also want to check this Windows forums for XP tweaking ideas:
I hope this helps.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Microsoft FoxPro Technical Support
*-- VFP9 Public Beta Now Available!! --*
Download the VFP9 beta here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/vfoxpro/
*-- VFP8 HAS ARRIVED!! --*
Read about all the new features of VFP8 here:
Purchase VFP8 here:
Keep an eye on the product lifecycle for Visual FoxPro here:
- VFP5 Mainstream Support retired June 30th, 2003
- VFP6 Mainstream Support retired Sept. 30th, 2003
>I toyed with the config.fpw. I usually use 80,10240,20480, but other
>settings did not help. I even played with config.nt, but was not able to
>make a difference. The exact same distribution runs fine on non-XP and
>machines and consistently gives the out of memory errors on machines faster
>then 2.4/2.6GHz that run XP. Do we expect these old apps to run forever?
>This works under Win2000 and is yet another reason why so many people here
>are still running Win2000. There seems to be a common perception that
>upgrading to XP is expensive and breaks too many of our current apps. Where
>I work right now we have hundreds of Win2000 machines, and only a handfull
>of XP machines. As much as Microsoft would love us to spend thousands of
>dollars upgrading the OS, we have too many legacy apps that we still use.
>Moving to VFP is not really an option. I don't think they want to invest
>millions in a technology that Microsoft doesn't believe is a suitable
>platform for enterprise development. Microsoft has made it quite clear the
>dot net is the way to go for enterprise development, so that is the path we
>are following. MS didn't have to discontinue VFP to kill it, all they had
>do was ignore it for long enough. We explored the VFP path, but could not
>find one single person who would stand up and tell us that VFP is the way
>go. It's dead, guys....dead dead dead :-) :P
>"Lee Mitchell" <Leemi@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> Hi Ook:
> So, they get the insufficient memory message. I assume you tried various
> setting for the Memlimit in the Config.fpw file. You might want to start
> with Memlimit=20,1024,2048
> Moving to VFP is the best solution in the long run. You really cannot
> expect these old 16-bit apps to run for ever on the newer machines.
> I hope this helps.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> Microsoft FoxPro Technical Support
> Lee Mitchell
> >Apparently the story is that it isn't just the fast machines, but
> >XP on fast machines running 2.4 GHz or so. They are so convinced of that
> >they they spent a small fortune doing an interim conversion to VFP to
> >them over until the dot net conversion is done. I did some testing, and
> >are the results:
> >PIII/800 Win2000. Runs fine.
> >Athlon 1700 Win98. Runs fine.
> >P4/3.0GHz WinXP. Gives "Insufficient memory".
> >P4 3.0GHz Win98. Runs fine.
> >Celeron 1.8GHz WinXP runs fine.
> >Celeron 1.8GHz Win98 runs fine.