|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Not a clue. Check MS's Knowledge Base.
>>>Very interesting indeed, thanks,
however, that probably doesn't
apply to Win NT / Win2K, does it?<<<
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of jr
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 4:23 PM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: The need for speed
Very interesting indeed, thanks,
however, that probably doesn't
apply to Win NT / Win2K, does it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "neo" <neo1@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 9:55 PM
Subject: The need for speed
> I believe that, although important, the processor and memory speed are
over
> emphasised. The real bottleneck is your hard drive. It runs so much slower
> than any other part of the system. The key is to have your entire program
> and data in RAM. There are 2 things required. The first is to have enough.
> For me this is 512 MB. (This can be decreased by minimising other programs
> running. The 2nd is to look in the Microsoft Knowledge Base for an article
> on ConservativeSwapfileUsage. If this is set to =1 in [386Enh] of
SYSTEM.INI
> it forces Windows to use all available RAM before the swapfile on your
disk.
> Normally Windows will use 50% of RAM and then start using the swapfile on
> your disk. This is probably a holdover from when we had tiny MBs of RAM.
If
> you have Norton SystemWorks or another program to monitor RAM and swapfile
> (virtual memory) used you will see the difference at once.
>
> In a recent example, in another program, I had pulled out a 128 MB card
and
> the time it took to open a chart went from < 1 second to about 20 seconds
as
> I saw my hard drive searching for the data.
>
> One other note. I have heard from various sources that programs leak
memory.
> That is, if you use a program all, or part, of it will remain in RAM and
not
> be available to other programs. I cannot confirm this. The program does
stay
> in memory but I believe it is over written as needed. If this leak is true
> then it would help to reboot you system from time to time.
>
> Disclaimer: I have been doing this for well over a year with Win98 (1st
Ed.)
> and it works great without a single problem. If you do this I have no
> responsibility for what might happen to your system. Look at MS's
Knowledge
> Base and try it if YOU decide to. This is only my personal information.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Rance Nunes
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 12:13 PM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Real-time screening of multiple stocks possible?
>
>
> In MetaStock Professional the documentation states that (paraphrasing)
> The Explorer's performance is significantly slower on intraday data
> while collecting real-time data.
>
> Can real-time searches be performed in MetaStock Pro?
>
> If so what is the order of magnitude of stocks that can be screened in
> real-time? That is, if a real-time Exploration is designed, how many
> simultaneous stocks can be screened when using tick by tick information
> while
> collecting real-time data? (Say on a 1-Gigahertz Pentium III with 256
Megs
> of
> memory).
>
> Any assistance is appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Rance
>
>
|