|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Nicholas,
you mentioned both vRamDir and, I assume, the Win9x cache. They are not the
same. The cache is a temporary place Win9x holds data before writing to the
HDD. As I mentioned before, *IF* you have the RAM, Win9x will automatically
increase your cache and you will obtain faster Explorations. *IF* you have the
RAM and you do MORE than ONE Exploration, you will notice your subsequent
Explorations are faster than the previous ones. To prove this, start Win9x
Explorer, right-click on the C: drive and choose "FIND". Do a find for any
file, then repeat the same find operation. Notice how you don't get any drive
activity? This is because the information Win9x needs to perform the find is
already in the Win9x cache memory.
This is one reason another person on this List who ran comparisons between
HDD's, RAM Disks, and other caches didn't notice large differences with the RAM
Disks and no RAM Disk at all. That being said, vRamDir claims it's faster than
the Win9x cache.
I have not read any info on Win00. I can only assume it uses more memory than
Win98, which uses more memory than Win95. ;^)
Daniel.
Nicholas Kormanik wrote:
> I discovered why my explorations were taking so long. In the Explorer
> Options, the 'Load Minimum Records' option was **not** checked. Instead I
> had the 'Load [5000] Records' option checked.
>
> Do any of you, for some good reason, advocate using the 'Load [XXXX]
> Records' option?
>
> Incidentally, I sent in a check for the program earlier mentioned here,
> vRamDir, and got it from the author a few days ago. After experimenting,
> I'm left with the impression that vRamDir probably is **not** a panacea for
> faster explorations --- each file of stock price data still must be
> individually read, and is not subsequently re-read, thus bringing it into
> cache in real time serves no purpose. One would have to copy all data files
> to RAM **before hand** in order for the cache to make a difference.
>
> One additional note: reading over the benefits of Windows 2000, it seems
> that it will make quite a difference to our explorations speed, from several
> different enhancements. Have any of you folks thought about this?
>
> Thanks for your advice.
>
> Nicholas
|