|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I did check everything I could find on the MS site about Win 2000 and there
is no place I could find about forcing all RAM to be used first. Reports are
that Win 2000 divides memory usage between RAM and the swapfile.
neo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bill Irwin
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 7:28 PM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Any hardware help?
Have you checked http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/default.asp and
support.microsoft.com ? I would be surprised if W2K allows RAM to be
sitting around unused while the swap file is churning away. It does use RAM
for disk cache and I believe the paging file needs to be opened with a small
amount of use in order for the rest of the memory management to function. I
don't think you'd have a memory/page file related problem with 1 GB of RAM
but, I haven't tested so I can't be certain. I'd check for articles on the
subject before forming a final conclusion Neo.
Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of neo
> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 11:52 AM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Any hardware help?
>
>
> Bill
>
> I have had to pull out 2 cards to get a stable system again.
> This takes me
> back to the 512 MB I had before. Since I really do not want
> to go to NT yet
> I will call Micron to return the chips and return to what I
> had before. I
> appreciate all the advice and will keep your email on file
> for a future
> upgrade to a Win NT product. My only concern about NT is that
> there does not
> seem to be a software switch to force NT to use all RAM
> before the swapfile.
> So unless MS changes this, NT will not do what I want either.
>
> Thanks again, neo
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bill Irwin
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 12:52 AM
> To: 'Mail List - MetaStock Submit (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: Any hardware help?
>
>
> I have been the victim of Win98's limited abilities. When I
> bought a new
> computer and went from a P/133 64MB RAM 4GB disk to a P3/600
> 128MB/133 RAM
> 30GB disk, I found myself unable to run the same number of programs
> concurrently on the new system without getting low on system
> resources and
> gradually coming to a screeching halt. It was so bad that I
> installed a
> freeware resource monitor that would warn me when my resource use had
> reached 90% so I could close an app while I still could and
> avoid a freeze.
>
> Although not perfect, my solution was to move to Windows
> 2000. W2K is based
> on the NT kernel (not Win 9x) and resources are limited by RAM, not a
> Microsoft induced 128 KB resource pool. After installing W2K
> fresh (not an
> upgrade from W98) and getting W2K drivers for many devices, as well as
> upgrading some programs that would not run in W2K, I'm
> basically a happy
> camper.
>
> I do get about 3 freezes a week, which I suspect is due to
> either a disk
> driver or my RAM, but I would gladly trade this for the
> previous scenario of
> having to nurse my PC along, running only a few apps, and
> always teetering
> on the edge of resource lockup.
>
> If you have the ability to remove a RAM chip and go to 512 MB
> you can test
> to see if your system becomes stable, although slightly
> slower. Personally
> I think you're a prime candidate for W2K because the amount
> of hardware
> you're asking W98 to support seems beyond it's capability.
> After all, I
> don't think you'll find very many home PCs with more than 512
> MB of RAM. NT
> servers, yes, but not PCs.
>
> If you decide to go the W2K route, do your homework first and run the
> compatibility test to identify all the components on your PC
> that are not
> W2K compatible, and get the drivers you'll need before hand. I would
> strongly recommend getting Power Quest's Partition Magic 6.0
> and creating an
> NTFS partition that you can experiment with, while you stay
> live in your W98
> partition. You should also create a FAT32 partition and put
> in it any files
> from your W98 environment that you want to be able to access
> from either W98
> or W2K. For me this included my Outlook .PST file, my
> Netscape bookmarks,
> my Quicken database and anything else I needed in either
> environment to me
> functional. If I'd tried to do this conversion without
> Partition Magic, I
> would've had a real serious mess on my hands. It contains
> Boot Magic, which
> presents a menu on boot that defaults to the OS you select and waits a
> selectable number of seconds before going into that default OS.
>
> You may be successful in getting your W98 to cope with 1GB of
> memory, but I
> don't think Microsoft is going to be spending all that much
> time trying to
> resolve a problem that only affects those customers with more
> than 512 MB
> ... especially when they want to see you moving to W2K anyway.
>
> Bill
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: neo [mailto:neo1@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 4:49 AM
> > To: Bill Irwin
> > Subject: RE: Any hardware help?
> >
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > My message to the board is below. I have gradually been
> > tracking this down.
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > I just upgraded my system to 1024MB (1 GB). I now have
> system freezes.
> > Symantec states there is a problem with their memory tester
> > in systems with
> > more than 256MB. MS's Knowledge Base states there can be
> problems with
> > Windows 98 system when the RAM exceeds 512MB. Apparently
> > there is a limited
> > amount of memory that controls memory addressing and vcache
> > in system.ini.
> > One can lower maxdiskcache but this lowers disk performance.
> >
> > please help
> >
> > neo1@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
>
>
>
|