|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Daniel, I don't think you are correct when saying Win9x is mostly a 32-bit
O/S... the graphical user interface (Windows to name it) of Windows 95 has
reused huge parts of the 16-bits Windows 3.1 code... As a consequence, there
was no way to get rid completely of the .ini garbage.
But I'll agree with you that, because of that 16-32 bits patchwork, some of
the system.ini commands affect 32-bits modules of the Windows 9x OS.
But I'll also agree with Bob Jagow that system.ini is really for (16 bits)
Windows 3.1 virtual machines in Windows NT, ie what it should also have been
in Win 9x if Microsoft had made a real 32-bits OS... the first reason they
didn't is for optimal support of the 16-bits, ie a major objective of 9x and
a minor one of NT.
Alain.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Martinez" <DanM@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: The need for speed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Nope [since system.ini applies only to 16-bit code]
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> I was referring to the above statement. SYSTEM.INI began with Windows 3.1
and
> was carried over to Windows 9x. Windows 3.1 is a 16-bit O/S. Win9x is
(mostly)
> a 32-bit O/S. Since many commands in SYSTEM.INI still control Win9x
> system-wide, the SYSTEM.INI commands also apply to 32-bit code.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
>
>
> Bob Jagow wrote:
>
> > Try reading my post, Daniel.
> > NT!
> > NT!
> > NT!
> > NT!
> > NT!
> > NT!
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Daniel Martinez
> > > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 7:06 PM
> > > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: The need for speed
> > >
> > >
> > > That's not quite true. Cacheman 3.8 partially manipulates the
> > > Disk Cache by
> > > using SYSTEM.INI. For those of you who don't know, Windows 9x has 2
ways
> > > dealing with memory: the Swapfile and the Disk Cache. The
> > > Swapfile is used
> > > when you don't have enough physical memory and the Disk Cache is
> > > physical memory
> > > set aside for tasks which are repeatedly used. On my system,
> > > Cacheman 3.8 uses
> > > these 2 commands to set the size of the Disk Cache to 21,000 KB:
> > > [vcache]
> > > chunksize=2048
> > > maxfilecache=21000
> > >
> > > BTW, to avoid using an exotic virtual memory program, I tried
> > > increasing the
> > > Disk Cache. The maximum you can increase it is to about 55 MB,
> > > not enough to
> > > place the entire QP database into memory.
> > >
> > > Windows 9x uses numerous other commands in the SYSTEM.INI file to
> > > customize your
> > > setup. If you set limits to the Swapfile size, the settings are
placed in
> > > SYSTEM.INI. If you want a DMA memory buffer, when you set the
> > > DMA size in your
> > > Device Manager, the setting is placed in your SYSTEM.INI. MANY
multimedia
> > > DLL's, etc..., are placed into SYSTEM.INI.
> > >
> > > Daniel.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bob Jagow wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
|