|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Nope [since system.ini applies only to 16-bit code].
There may be some corresponding registry entries but I'd leave them alone.
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of jr
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 1:23 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
> >
> >
>
>
|