On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:49:31 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 09:42:35, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote (my
>responses usually follow points raised):
>[]
>>Not a problem on wife's machine. She doesn't use it for much more
>>than browsing and email. I only realized her machine wasn't using all
>>6GB of memory when I "upgraded?" to FF 95 and she started getting out
>>of memory warnings with only one tab open. That damn thing (FF 95)
>>uses 2.9GB just opening it on her machine.
>[]
>Wow, I've heard of inefficiency, but ... when you say "just opening it",
>is that to a blank tab, or a specific "home page" (if so, what URL?)?

Apologies! Finger slipped so should have read 1.9GB not 2.9. She
opens FF with just a "My Yahoo" homepage open.

Here is the link for bypassing 4GB limit instructions. I'm not 1/10th
as smart as Paul so I don't know all the technicalities, but it works
for me with no problems. Use at your discretion. :-)

https://www.sendspace.com/file/fbtydw

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

On 1/24/2022 11:06 AM, jetjock wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:49:31 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 09:42:35, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote (my
>> responses usually follow points raised):
>> []
>>> Not a problem on wife's machine. She doesn't use it for much more
>>> than browsing and email. I only realized her machine wasn't using all
>>> 6GB of memory when I "upgraded?" to FF 95 and she started getting out
>>> of memory warnings with only one tab open. That damn thing (FF 95)
>>> uses 2.9GB just opening it on her machine.
>> []
>> Wow, I've heard of inefficiency, but ... when you say "just opening it",
>> is that to a blank tab, or a specific "home page" (if so, what URL?)?
>
> Apologies! Finger slipped so should have read 1.9GB not 2.9. She
> opens FF with just a "My Yahoo" homepage open.
>
> Here is the link for bypassing 4GB limit instructions. I'm not 1/10th
> as smart as Paul so I don't know all the technicalities, but it works
> for me with no problems. Use at your discretion. :-)
>
> https://www.sendspace.com/file/fbtydw
>

So that's a binary edit to a kernel file.

Since it's a 32-bit OS, the signing is not as demanding
as on a 64-bit OS. The file is being re-signed, and then
using the testsigning setting for the OS, that helps allow
the modified file to be used. Although I don't follow what
the filename has to do with it. Kernel files may be selected
based on installed HAL used, and yet I don't see the
HAL being changed to cause a different Kernel file to be selected.

The Testsigning mode of operation, the instructions have a
hack to remove a banner that could potentially be displayed
on a screen while running in that mode. The purpose of the
banner, is so the owner of the machine can see they're
running on a (potentially hacked) box. The visual tidy-up
is to hide some of that.

Typically on hacks, you modify a branch instruction, and perhaps
change or nullify a condition the code is looking for. Then, it
depends on how many places in the code, check for the condition,
as to how many hex edits are required.

I did a hex edit on a binary myself once, using a disassembler
I got off the web. The frustrating part was, I would make the
edit... and dammit, it didn't work. But after a while, I was
looking at the disassembler output, and seeing two identical chunks
of code in the binary. It turned out, that an aggressive
space-time setting for the compiler had been used, and instead
of "for i=1, i<=2, i++" kind of construct, the blasted compiler
just made a copy of a giant chunk of binary, and put two
copies of the binary, end to end after one another. All to save
on a single loop construct. Once I saw what was going on, that's
when I realized I needed to make two hex edits, and then the
hack worked. I was making PearPC work with large disks or something,
I think that was the hack.

But it's hard work, working with a disassembler and guessing what
the code is doing :-) It would be especially so, in a kernel file.

I would have compiled from source, but that was a more daunting
prospect than using the hex editor. Some builds are just awful,
the amount of cruft you have to acquire to finish a build.

And you would only bother with that hack, if you knew your
processor was maybe, a Core2 or more modern, just to avoid
a chipset that does not support 36-bit addresses. I would spend
a bit of time investigating the motherboard, if it was S478 and
a P4 variant was involved. In some cases, this hack would only
net you another 512MB of memory or so. But if you're using
more capable hardware, and holding it back with a 32-bit OS,
then you could have 64GB to work with, in ~2GB chunks.

If you're running a modern Firefox, I would think there would
be some potential net benefit from the hack. Due to the Quantum
allowing multiple "content" processes. I don't know if Firefox
is smart enough to know, that a Content process is out of RAM
and use the next Content process instead.

Another topic you might want to research, is how Windows Update
deals with TestSigning mode. Even when you have no outstanding
updates to do in Windows Update, the update scanner can still
run multiple times during the day, looking for stuff to do.
You know what a whiner and troublemaker Windows Update is.

Paul

On 1/23/2022 10:52, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 at 21:09:37, Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> On 1/22/2022 3:54, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 18:21:11, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm>
>>> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>>>> Why do you want to do this? What problem are you trying to solve.
>>>>
>>>> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
>>>>
>>> I'd be interested to hear, too. The only reason _I_ can think of (unless
>>> there is a need to use some advanced software only available in 64-bit)
>>> is to enable use of more RAM than (nearly) 4G - and that only because of
>>> the increasing sloppiness/laziness of website programmers (nothing I do
>>> other than having multiple browser tabs open goes anywhere near needing
>>> all of my 3G).
>>
>> That would be the only reason that I'd consider switching to 64 bit. I
>> have 32 bit W7, and I installed it when I built my system in 2015
>> because of a few legacy 16 bit programs. I very rarely use them,
>> probably wasn't worth it. I have 4GB of RAM, and it works as is, but
>> the browser can sometimes come close to eating a lot of it.
>
> I have an add-on for Chrome called "The Great Suspender Original" (the
> "Original" matters) that stops tabs other than the current one doing
> anything after a time I can set (I have it set to one hour at the
> moment); this has given me back quite a bit of performance. There are
> probably other similar, for Chrome and other browsers. (My ancient
> Firefox - 27.0.1 - doesn't seem to suffer it much, even with lots of
> tabs open, probably because it just can't _run_ the script on many
> pages. [It does sometimes experience RAM runaway - restarting it seems
> to clear that - but that's not normally noticeable.])
>
> Before getting TGSO working again (I'd had TGS a few years ago, but
> Google had blocked it because of apparent spying), I mainly noticed the
> problem as constant disc access. Using Resource Monitor (it's a button
> in the Performance tab of Task Manager), I was able to see which
> processes were the disc usage culprits, and Chrome's own Task Manager
> (shift-esc from within Chrome) let me stop them (stopping them doesn't
> close the tab), but that's tedious - having other than the active tab
> suspended automatically after a settable time is a lot easier.
> (Switching to a suspended tab then clicking anywhere in it reloads it.)

Do they make a similar add-on for Firefox 78?

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 10:06:09, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
>On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:49:31 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 09:42:35, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote (my
>>responses usually follow points raised):
>>[]
>>>Not a problem on wife's machine. She doesn't use it for much more
>>>than browsing and email. I only realized her machine wasn't using all
>>>6GB of memory when I "upgraded?" to FF 95 and she started getting out
>>>of memory warnings with only one tab open. That damn thing (FF 95)
>>>uses 2.9GB just opening it on her machine.
>>[]
>>Wow, I've heard of inefficiency, but ... when you say "just opening it",
>>is that to a blank tab, or a specific "home page" (if so, what URL?)?
>
>Apologies! Finger slipped so should have read 1.9GB not 2.9. She
>opens FF with just a "My Yahoo" homepage open.

Ouch, even 1.9G is huge! Have you tried changing the homepage to
something _other_ than "My Yahoo" (ideally a blank)?
>
>Here is the link for bypassing 4GB limit instructions. I'm not 1/10th
>as smart as Paul so I don't know all the technicalities, but it works
>for me with no problems. Use at your discretion. :-)
>
>https://www.sendspace.com/file/fbtydw
>
> >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

Thanks - downloaded for reference. (No, Paul's way above me too!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Religion is a name for opinion that cannot be argued about. [Heard on Radio 4,
2010-10-18, 9:xx.]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 02:01:58 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 10:06:09, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote (my
>responses usually follow points raised):
>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:49:31 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 09:42:35, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote (my
>>>responses usually follow points raised):
>>>[]
>>>>Not a problem on wife's machine. She doesn't use it for much more
>>>>than browsing and email. I only realized her machine wasn't using all
>>>>6GB of memory when I "upgraded?" to FF 95 and she started getting out
>>>>of memory warnings with only one tab open. That damn thing (FF 95)
>>>>uses 2.9GB just opening it on her machine.
>>>[]
>>>Wow, I've heard of inefficiency, but ... when you say "just opening it",
>>>is that to a blank tab, or a specific "home page" (if so, what URL?)?
>>
>>Apologies! Finger slipped so should have read 1.9GB not 2.9. She
>>opens FF with just a "My Yahoo" homepage open.
>
>Ouch, even 1.9G is huge! Have you tried changing the homepage to
>something _other_ than "My Yahoo" (ideally a blank)?

No need now since she has all the memory room she needs for the little
she does.
>>
>>Here is the link for bypassing 4GB limit instructions. I'm not 1/10th
>>as smart as Paul so I don't know all the technicalities, but it works
>>for me with no problems. Use at your discretion. :-)
>>
>>https://www.sendspace.com/file/fbtydw
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
>
>Thanks - downloaded for reference. (No, Paul's way above me too!)

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 13:26:45, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 02:01:58 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 10:06:09, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote (my
>>responses usually follow points raised):
>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:49:31 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 09:42:35, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote (my
>>>>responses usually follow points raised):
>>>>[]
>>>>>Not a problem on wife's machine. She doesn't use it for much more
>>>>>than browsing and email. I only realized her machine wasn't using all
>>>>>6GB of memory when I "upgraded?" to FF 95 and she started getting out
>>>>>of memory warnings with only one tab open. That damn thing (FF 95)
>>>>>uses 2.9GB just opening it on her machine.
>>>>[]
>>>>Wow, I've heard of inefficiency, but ... when you say "just opening it",
>>>>is that to a blank tab, or a specific "home page" (if so, what URL?)?
>>>
>>>Apologies! Finger slipped so should have read 1.9GB not 2.9. She
>>>opens FF with just a "My Yahoo" homepage open.
>>
>>Ouch, even 1.9G is huge! Have you tried changing the homepage to
>>something _other_ than "My Yahoo" (ideally a blank)?
>
>No need now since she has all the memory room she needs for the little
>she does.

I thought you might still be just curious, as to whether it's the
browser itself or the "My Yahoo" page that' consuming a whopping 1.9G of
RAM. If you load that same page on your own machine, does it take a lot?
Is there anything obvious about the page that's likely to be
memory-hungry (not that, these days, it necessarily _is_ anything
obvious: they can load huge code blocks, which can then load lots more
...., without anything appearing in the browser window)?

If it _is_ just the browser, then head-palm "good grief" a la Charlie
Brown. (Actually, same if it's the Yahoo page.)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We'd agreed to overlook each others' families and everything, and get married"
(The Trouble with Harry)

On 1/25/2022 3:23 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 13:26:45, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 02:01:58 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 10:06:09, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote (my
>>> responses usually follow points raised):
>>>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:49:31 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 09:42:35, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote (my
>>>>> responses usually follow points raised):
>>>>> []
>>>>>> Not a problem on wife's machine.  She doesn't use it for much more
>>>>>> than browsing and email.  I only realized her machine wasn't using all
>>>>>> 6GB of memory when I "upgraded?" to FF 95 and she started getting out
>>>>>> of memory warnings with only one tab open.  That damn thing (FF 95)
>>>>>> uses 2.9GB just opening it on her machine.
>>>>> []
>>>>> Wow, I've heard of inefficiency, but ... when you say "just opening it",
>>>>> is that to a blank tab, or a specific "home page" (if so, what URL?)?
>>>>
>>>> Apologies!  Finger slipped so should have read 1.9GB not 2.9.  She
>>>> opens FF with just a "My Yahoo" homepage open.
>>>
>>> Ouch, even 1.9G is huge! Have you tried changing the homepage to
>>> something _other_ than "My Yahoo" (ideally a blank)?
>>
>> No need now since she has all the memory room she needs for the little
>> she does.
>
> I thought you might still be just curious, as to whether it's the browser itself or the "My Yahoo" page that' consuming a whopping 1.9G of RAM. If you load that same page on your own machine, does it take a lot? Is there anything obvious about the page that's likely to be memory-hungry (not that, these days, it necessarily _is_ anything obvious: they can load huge code blocks, which can then load lots more ..., without anything appearing in the browser window)?
>
> If it _is_ just the browser, then head-palm "good grief" a la Charlie Brown. (Actually, same if it's the Yahoo page.)
> []

Someone at Yahoo takes a lot of pride in burning up all that RAM.

I'm getting 600MB for this, in Seamonkey, while scrolling all the
way to the bottom and getting it all to load. A while back, this
page would weigh in at about 1GB.

https://ca.yahoo.com/?p=us

Paul