|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Neo,
Try this site and cruise around a bit. Its a slow load but the info. should
be helpful. Look in the call for help section. Also look for ways to speed
up your computer.
http://www.techtv.com/techtv/
J.
>From: "neo" <neo1@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: Any hardware help?
>Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:22:23 -0500
>
>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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
|