install vfp3 and insufficient memory 1

[infotrak]

Reinstalling vpf3 and all works ok but on executer get
little ugly MS window 'insufficient memory' not an app just vpf.exe. Machine is 1mhz with 1gb memory so not a physical problem. win98se. pete

 

[Mike Gagnon]

Why did you start two threads with the same question?
thread184-750754

Mike Gagnon

If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ184-2483 first.

 

[infotrak]

new at this game. response to first thread was relative to insuffient memory with vfp executing. I just refined the question relative to getting vfp.exe to run. sri

 

[JRegal]

VFP3 can't work with more than 256 MB memory!
You have two choices:
- limit the memory on your PC to 252 MB
- buy VFP5 or higher!
I had the same problem and upgraded to VFP7
Greetings,
J. Régal

 

[infotrak]

Jregal/PeterD. U are correct I think. Works on my old 64mg portable. ANy thoughts on best way to upgrade? vfp7 or vfp8? tnx for ur help

 

[rgbean]

Definitely get VFP 8.0 - while there are a few more possible &quot;conversion&quot; problems from 3.0 to than 7.0, you also don't have to worry about the unique 7.0 &quot;features&quot;. (The different way of indexing comes to mind! <s>)

You can't really &quot;upgrade&quot; to either since you need VFP 5.0 plus for this (

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vfoxpro/howtobuy/pricing/default.aspx).

Also, according to the reworded EULA if you upgrade, then you can't use the old product anymore. (See earlier discussions on this revelation.)

Rick

 

[craigsboyd]

Rick,

&quot;The different way of indexing comes to mind&quot;

...mind clairfying that statement?


Slighthaze = NULL
_{craig1442@mchsi.com}

&quot;Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.&quot; - Anon​

 

[rgbean]

Slighthaze,
See my explanation in thread184-708481. Basically a new index takes more disk space than ANY other version of FoxPro.

Rick

 

[craigsboyd]

Rick,

Hadn't realized that the index files in VFP7 were so much larger than the other versions. When you said &quot;more stable&quot; are you saying that you read something that said the increase in size was to help defend against index corruption? This is all new to me, first I've heard about the indexes being so much different.

Slighthaze = NULL
_{craig1442@mchsi.com}

&quot;Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.&quot; - Anon​

 

[infotrak]

best place to get 8.0 and does professional include distributable exe support?

 

[rgbean]

Craig,
Yes, the technique used in VFP 7.0 was meant to introduce more empty spots in the index leaves, so that more records could be added before having to re-balance the tree &quot;limbs&quot;. Since there is more exposure to corruption during the rebalancing phase, it was thought that by reducing the number of times this was necessary, it might reduce (one) source of index corruption.

Note: The indexes weren't really different in structure, but in how they were initially filled in and some of the algorithms that did the rebalancing. It was these changes that effected the size of the indexes and some reported that SEEKs were also slower because they required more physical IO's to trace down the deeper links.

Of course the worst case was for those that had very large index files - 1+ gb in VFP 6.0 (and earlier). In 7.0 people were reporting that they were going over the 2gb file limit on the .CDX files. This stopped applications from running when they tried recreating indexes and they ran into this file size limit. Also, in some cases there wasn't enough room on the file servers for all the &quot;new&quot; bloated index files - even when each was below 2gb. e.g. We have one app that has 160+ .CDX files - imagine each one growing 50% to 500% (and more) - that's a lot of disk extra space required, more physical IOs and of course more time to backup!

Rick

 

[craigsboyd]

Star worthy explanation, thank you Rick for clarifying.

Slighthaze = NULL
_{craig1442@mchsi.com}

&quot;Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.&quot; - Anon​