SPONSORED LINKS
On Sat, 10 Aug 1996, Randy Whittle wrote: > At 09:05 PM 8/9/96 -0400, bivanovi@golden.net wrote: > > >I have two things that I don't like about the 701 running win95, does anyone > >else have the same problem, or solutions? > > > >1. Adjusting the volume with FN PgUp / PgDn sometimes makes the pointer > > disappear. This didn't happen in 3.1. > > Happens here too on mine. If I push the stick all the way to > bottom & then back up, I usually get my pointer back. The C&T 65545 video chipset in the 701 has a "hardware mouse pointer" feature. Basically, this means instead of the OS having to draw the mouse pointer on the screen, the OS just gives a bitmap of the pointer to the hardware and pointer position, and the hardware draws it before every video refresh. It's most noticeable if you put the pointer over a scrolling window. If it's hardware-based, it will not flicker. If it isn't hardware-based, it will flicker (badly). IBM apparently used this feature on the 701 to make the battery/ volume/contrast/etc. status displays show up on-screen. The result is that if the OS uses the hardware mouse feature, the pointer bitmap is temporarily replaced by the status display. It goes back to normal if you do anything that changes the mouse pointer (pointer bitmap gets replaced again). The problem also shows up under Linux with the AcceleratedX drivers, which uses the hardware mouse feature. Win95 might have some settings that let you modify whether this feature is used. Try the mouse and video settings. It might be affected by the video hardware acceleration slider bar. That will fix the "problem," but your pointer will flicker whenever the background is redrawn. >>Also, I have 8MB RAM, how much of an improvement is there, going to 16 or 24? > > With Win '95? I'd say enormous. I bought an extra 8 MB when I got > my 701 and never regretted it. Win '95 uses a *lot* memory. Prices are so > cheap now, I'd recommend you go strait to a full 24 MB. Even then, on my > machine at least, it seems barely enough (I load up lots of cutesy stuff > with Win '95 like Norton tools). I run Win95 occasionally with 24 MB. The extra memory does help, but Win95's default swapfile management is inane (16MB free on swap partition). I'd be doing nothing in particular when Win95 suddenly decided it should reduce the swapfile size. The resulting disk activity pretty much ground everything to a halt for 5-30 sec. The extra memory seems to reduce how often the swapfile grows, but not how much. Worse yet, it would often run out of swapspace and crash. Eventually I got fed up and fixed the swapfile size at 8MB. It still crashes, but not as often. -- John H. Kim "I stop for red traffic lights" -- bumper sticker jokim@mit.edu commissioned by the City of Boston as part of a MIT Sea Grant campaign to shed its reputation for bad drivers.