ABXZone Computer  Forums



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-09-2003, 03:58 AM   #46
Monkey Hanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,591
The swap file was dated with that days date.
I didn't need to delete the previous one as it was zero bytes.
And it's 98se.

Can't comment about performance though because it feels the same. I'm not a great believer in benchmarks - I prefer my own "gut" feeling.

Maybe I don't do the kind of things that would have benefited from the change?
(Offline)   Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]
Old 05-09-2003, 04:05 AM   #47
ThugsRook
Registered User
 
ThugsRook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FLA
Posts: 1,834
do some serious multitasking to max out your memory usage while surfing.

winzip a 1400mb file while listening to mp3s.....
just start clicking on stuff, or surf the web, etc.

like you said, its a gut feeling

Last edited by ThugsRook; 05-09-2003 at 04:10 AM..
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2003, 07:23 AM   #48
ThugsRook
Registered User
 
ThugsRook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FLA
Posts: 1,834
interestingly enough....

some of my tests are actually showing its better to use the swap file

conservative = 3:34
normal = 3:27

i guess we may as well not even bother with that part, so i removed it from the instructions. ill continue to test tho.


you know what i think this is gonna come down to?
the age old question ~ is 1024mb better then 512mb?
(of course we need to limit the vcache for 1024mb)

im gonna finish up these tests using 1024mb and then redo all of the tests using my 2x256mb sticks
(normally and vcache tweaked)
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2003, 12:00 PM   #49
Monkey Hanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,591
Quote:
Originally posted by ThugsRook
do some serious multitasking to max out your memory usage while surfing.

winzip a 1400mb file while listening to mp3s.....
just start clicking on stuff, or surf the web, etc.

like you said, its a gut feeling
But, doing that is not representative of my useage, so it would not be of benefit.

I have a lot of memory so that I can manipulate photos and video in memory. I don't really go in for multi-tasking. Also, memory is a cost effective way of inproving performance.

Saying that reminds me of one a one time piece of multi-tasking I did. It was formatting a floppy whilst playing Solitaire. Now, that really is the way to get a high score in minimum time !!
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2003, 03:30 PM   #50
ThugsRook
Registered User
 
ThugsRook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FLA
Posts: 1,834
Quote:
Originally posted by Monkey Hanger
But, doing that is not representative of my useage, so it would not be of benefit.
thats the same problem i was having ~ just trying to find a way to even show a difference isnt easy.

youll need to figure your own test based on how you use the computer.

tweaking this vcache setting is mostly for better large file handling, and to keep the vcache from taking over all your ram.

(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2003, 03:38 PM   #51
ThugsRook
Registered User
 
ThugsRook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FLA
Posts: 1,834
512mb vcache tweaking

ive finished my testing using 512mb of ram.
here's my results in a nutshell:

~ using a normal swap file was better
~ limiting the vcache was better
~ vcache sweet spot was 367000k (358mb 70%)


ill post results for 1024mb of ram a little later.

(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2003, 03:42 PM   #52
Monkey Hanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,591
Useful stuff TR.

Just goes to show, that there ain't a "one size fits all" in computing.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2003, 04:21 PM   #53
bajo
C1eaner
 
bajo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: TX, USA
Posts: 17,311
Smile just curious ...

How's the new defragmenter better than the original, 98se ?
__________________
USA "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." Duke(The Shootist)
Gigabyte_AGP_LGA775, PentiumD960_dual core 3.6GHz, SapphireHD3850_AGP512MB_DDR2, WD RaptorX 150GB SATA_clearTop_16MB + Seagate 1TB SATA_32MB, CorsairDominator 2GB 8500_1066MHz, Dell 24" 2408WFP *AGP +DVIx2 +HDMI +DisplayPort +USB2x4, XPproSP3
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Inspiron9400 17"uxga CentrinoC2duoT7600_2.39GHz_685MHz 4GB Micron6400@800_675_400MHz GeForceGo7900GSMobileForce_M6Enhanced_256MB 2x500GbSATA_7200rpm_16MBcache Vista hp, VistaP6002_SP2
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2003, 10:35 PM   #54
ThugsRook
Registered User
 
ThugsRook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FLA
Posts: 1,834
Re: just curious ...

Quote:
Originally posted by bajo
How's the new defragmenter better than the original, 98se ?
mucho faster

make a backup of your current defragger, if youre skeptical

it works really nice ~ all of those updates have been thoroughly tested by me for months. (or in some cases ~ years) they all work perfectly.

(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2003, 10:57 PM   #55
bajo
C1eaner
 
bajo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: TX, USA
Posts: 17,311
Thumbs up thanks bud !!

__________________
USA "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." Duke(The Shootist)
Gigabyte_AGP_LGA775, PentiumD960_dual core 3.6GHz, SapphireHD3850_AGP512MB_DDR2, WD RaptorX 150GB SATA_clearTop_16MB + Seagate 1TB SATA_32MB, CorsairDominator 2GB 8500_1066MHz, Dell 24" 2408WFP *AGP +DVIx2 +HDMI +DisplayPort +USB2x4, XPproSP3
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Inspiron9400 17"uxga CentrinoC2duoT7600_2.39GHz_685MHz 4GB Micron6400@800_675_400MHz GeForceGo7900GSMobileForce_M6Enhanced_256MB 2x500GbSATA_7200rpm_16MBcache Vista hp, VistaP6002_SP2
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2003, 12:51 AM   #56
ThugsRook
Registered User
 
ThugsRook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FLA
Posts: 1,834
1024mb vcache tweaking

ive finished my testing using 1024mb of ram.
here's my results in a nutshell:

~ using a 1gb min swap file was better
~ limiting the vcache is needed to boot windows
~ vcache sweet spot was 524288k (512mb 50%)


Last edited by ThugsRook; 09-12-2003 at 04:03 PM..
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2003, 02:15 AM   #57
bajo
C1eaner
 
bajo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: TX, USA
Posts: 17,311
Thumbs up

" is 1024mb faster then 512mb? no

is 1024mb better then 512mb? no "


good - that's also my mobo's limit
__________________
USA "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." Duke(The Shootist)
Gigabyte_AGP_LGA775, PentiumD960_dual core 3.6GHz, SapphireHD3850_AGP512MB_DDR2, WD RaptorX 150GB SATA_clearTop_16MB + Seagate 1TB SATA_32MB, CorsairDominator 2GB 8500_1066MHz, Dell 24" 2408WFP *AGP +DVIx2 +HDMI +DisplayPort +USB2x4, XPproSP3
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Inspiron9400 17"uxga CentrinoC2duoT7600_2.39GHz_685MHz 4GB Micron6400@800_675_400MHz GeForceGo7900GSMobileForce_M6Enhanced_256MB 2x500GbSATA_7200rpm_16MBcache Vista hp, VistaP6002_SP2
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2003, 06:44 AM   #58
ThugsRook
Registered User
 
ThugsRook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FLA
Posts: 1,834
hehe ~ dont get me wrong,
im gonna keep using 1024mb of ram and a MaxFileCache=524288 solely because it last alot longer when i deal with large files. (which i do often)

(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2003, 03:08 PM   #59
Piddyful
Highly Regulated User
 
Piddyful's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: So. California
Posts: 656
Unfortunately, I will not be trying this experiment cause my windows ME doesn't seem to be telling me it needs more ram when it comes to performance. My games run great, windows, benching, etc.. I'm going to try not to fix what isn't broke.

I will however, try this new defragger.
__________________
Intel P4 2.6C, ASuS P4C800-E Deluxe, 2x40gb Maxtor ATA133 RAID 0, 2x256mb Corsair XMS PC3500, HIS 9800pro 128mb, Thermalright slk-800u, Enermax 460w, Antec 1030b, Audigy ES, Logitech Z5300 5.1, & Viewsonic G220f 21"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2003, 06:11 PM   #60
ThugsRook
Registered User
 
ThugsRook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FLA
Posts: 1,834
the defragger is for Win98/SE only.

why?
cause IT IS the WinME defragger
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com

© 2006 - 2016 ABXZone Forums | About ABX Zone Forums | Advertisers | Investors | Legal | A member of the Crowdgather Forum Community