friends Posted September 26, 2004 Posted September 26, 2004 well.... I'm not sure it is my AutoIT3 program bug or what. I found out that it consumes 5,xxxK of memory usage. The kinda simple.... have 4 tabs, date & time, and other inputs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have created a program using AutoIT3 also, I tested to compile the exactly same source code with v102 and v103, however, when I ran it in Windows 2000 platform, the memory usage as shown below : v.102 => 2,3xxK v.103 => 3,4xxK that makes a big different..... why is that so ?
Administrators Jon Posted September 26, 2004 Administrators Posted September 26, 2004 (edited) friends said: well.... I'm not sure it is my AutoIT3 program bug or what. I found out that it consumes 5,xxxK of memory usage. The kinda simple.... have 4 tabs, date & time, and other inputs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have created a program using AutoIT3 also, I tested to compile the exactly same source code with v102 and v103, however, when I ran it in Windows 2000 platform, the memory usage as shown below : v.102 => 2,3xxK v.103 => 3,4xxK that makes a big different..... why is that so ? Looks normal. The number process manager shows is completely wrong anyhow - it only tends to show dynamically allocated memory and not static memory. A lot of the code has been improved (102 to 103) to use more dynamic memory when required and less static memory so although the number in process manager looks bigger it isn't actually - if anything the memory used is less in the new version (lots of improvements to variant memory use) Edited September 26, 2004 by Jon Deployment Blog: https://www.autoitconsulting.com/site/blog/ SCCM SDK Programming: https://www.autoitconsulting.com/site/sccm-sdk/
friends Posted September 27, 2004 Author Posted September 27, 2004 Jon said: Looks normal. The number process manager shows is completely wrong anyhow - it only tends to show dynamically allocated memory and not static memory. A lot of the code has been improved (102 to 103) to use more dynamic memory when required and less static memory so although the number in process manager looks bigger it isn't actually - if anything the memory used is less in the new version (lots of improvements to variant memory use) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>oh... ok. Thanks for the info.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now