Clock Speed/ FSB/ Ram speed

Quote from kiwi_trader:

Thats half true gnome.

But you can do things with more ram that do help. For example I have 4G (of which XP can only see 3.5 anyway) but do two things that make a big speed difference:
- I have no page file so there is no page file overhead and unless you run some very weird software nothing actually requires page file once you have 4G.
- I run a 400M ramdisk on that and have SierraChart, JTS (tws folder), Firefox and Firefox cache etc all on the ram disk.

I actually did it all to reduce disk accesses (I minimize any form of noise and thought my disk drives would last longer without all that data pounding away at them) but it makes a huge difference to the speed of those applications. Very very responsive.

You don't need any of this but RAM is so so cheap now you might as well do it. :)
More...

Do you save any data to disk? If so, isn't it a pain to save through your virtual environment?

Returnil has a program which runs everything on the OS drive in a virtual environment. Only problem is saving data. It's saved to a virtual location during the session but is lost unless written to disk before power is shut down or inadvertently lost.
 
I use SuperSpeed Ramdisk Pro and it saves at the end of the session.

At one stage I had some software that ran a copy every 15 minutes but I think I've had 2 crashes in the last 18 months and both were caused by some new hardware so I don't run it any more.

It is easy to do if it matters.
 
Quote from kiwi_trader:
Thats half true gnome.
But you can do things with more ram that do help. For example I have 4G (of which XP can only see 3.5 anyway) but do two things that make a big speed difference:
- I have no page file so there is no page file overhead and unless you run some very weird software nothing actually requires page file once you have 4G.
- I run a 400M ramdisk on that and have SierraChart, JTS (tws folder), Firefox and Firefox cache etc all on the ram disk.
I actually did it all to reduce disk accesses (I minimize any form of noise and thought my disk drives would last longer without all that data pounding away at them) but it makes a huge difference to the speed of those applications. Very very responsive.
You don't need any of this but RAM is so so cheap now you might as well do it. :)
More...


You don't have page files? That's a lie. It is impossible. That's not how Windows was designed.
Post your Task Manager and see.
 
Quote from kiwi_trader:
I use SuperSpeed Ramdisk Pro and it saves at the end of the session.
At one stage I had some software that ran a copy every 15 minutes but I think I've had 2 crashes in the last 18 months and both were caused by some new hardware so I don't run it any more.
It is easy to do if it matters.
More...

Sure, all you need is a momentary power hicup and whatever you have on your Ramdisk is screwed. For whatever perceived speed advantage you get... that's a real smart way to run a computer.
 
ET99,

Not sure why you're trying to make out you're a big man but it makes you seem much less so.

1. If I lived in an uncivilized area I might get a few power glitches. Funnily I don't. But more to the point if I lost power all that I would lose was the data collected today ... so what's backfill for?

2. You think I'm lying when I say I don't have a page file. Read the picture and learn a tiny bit. In this situation the task manager readings are irrelevant as windows will show 95%+ of your current usage as PF usage and show kernal as paged although it isn't (it seems to manage it as pageable but it remains in ram). If you doubt that then you can prove it for yourself by using sysinternal's Procmon with and without a page file.


Nice box silvermotion.
.
 

Attachments

Quote from kiwi_trader:

ET99,

Not sure why you're trying to make out you're a big man but it makes you seem much less so.

1. If I lived in an uncivilized area I might get a few power glitches. Funnily I don't. But more to the point if I lost power all that I would lose was the data collected today ... so what's backfill for?

2. You think I'm lying when I say I don't have a page file. Read the picture and learn a tiny bit. In this situation the task manager readings are irrelevant as windows will show 95%+ of your current usage as PF usage and show kernal as paged although it isn't (it seems to manage it as pageable but it remains in ram). If you doubt that then you can prove it for yourself by using sysinternal's Procmon with and without a page file.


Nice box silvermotion.
.
More...

You are in denial.
Putting the page files in RAMdisk does not mean you do not have page file.
That brings us back to the same question -- what for ???
 
You seem unable to understand. First you say I lie; then I'm screwed; then I'm in denial. I see that ET is still has the odd lurking twat.

The page file is not on the ram disk. There is no page file; everything that would be switched to page file stays in ram (not ramdisk).

If anyone wants to understand what the benefits of using a ramdisk for programs is they can see my first post.

If anyone cares about the benefits of not using a page file --- its simple, apparently you get about a 10% speed improvement. The argument is made in The Hotfix, a site full of systems programmers and windows reconstructors. In my case I did it because you can with 4G and because it was one less access to the disk drives saving on noise, wear, and power use (so its good for the environment). My system is 8500 based so speed isn't a big issue.
 
Do you think Microsoft is stupid by putting the page files on harddisk?
Do you think Microsoft wants to slow down your computer?
The page files are there for a reason.
But you think you are smarter than Microsoft.
 
I feel sorry for you et99; you seem filled with such futile anger and rigidity. Why would I think Microsoft was collectively stupid (can an organization be correctly labeled stupid?) Why would anyone think that a design developed to give the masses the minimum number of blue screens of death was less than optimal for all users?

Consider that BG thought that we would never need more than 640K of ram. Consider that page files were developed to cope with a world where RAM was expensive compared with hard drives but even the hard drives were small.

Consider that many XP existing machines still have 384M or less ram (and thus page files of perhaps 2-3 times that for a total memory 1G or less). Hmmm ... what does windows do when it reaches the max for its page files? Hmmm ... is 4G of ram enough for an intelligent pc literate user? Is it good to reduce noise, reduce power usage and increase speed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top