|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
>Isn't the OS normally loaded in to RAM anyways?
I'm not exactly sure, but the temp file is stored
on the HD and you don't have to be a rocket scientist
to see that the HD light flickers when you bring
up new charts in TS4. I'm no expert, but the ram drive
I set up made TS3.5(?) run very fast on a very limited
machine.
I have no idea if it's worth the effort with win2K.
Here's a link about ram drives on win98:
http://pub36.ezboard.com/fthegreyarea42587frm4.showMessage?topicID=20.topic
BW
>From: "Jim Bronke" <jvbronke@xxxxxxxx>
>To: "Bill Wynne" <tradewynne@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <csuslistproc@xxxxxxxxx>,
><omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Computers?
>Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 20:03:33 -0700
>
>Isn't the OS normally loaded in to RAM anyways? I have extra RAM with no
>where to go.
>
>Jim B.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill Wynne" <tradewynne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <csuslistproc@xxxxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 5:30 PM
>Subject: Re: Computers?
>
>
> > >The bottleneck is usually the hard drive.
> >
> > That's been my experience too. I have an old
> > pII 233 that was a dog: a new 30 gig HD and Win2k
> > and it's like a new machine.
> >
> > >I've actually seen a setup
> > >with over 1 gig of ram and the guy loaded the OS onto the ram so it
> > >would run faster. Was a pretty sweet setup.
> >
> > I had a ram drive on an old system (win 3.11?) and temp files loaded
> > into ram. TS and other stuff were very fast and stable
> > (a side benefit is the temp directory is purged every time
> > you reboot). Anyone know how to do it in Win2K?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > BW
> >
> >
> > >From: Tai Nguyen <csuslistproc@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >Reply-To: Tai <csuslistproc@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> > >Subject: Re: Computers?
> > >Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 15:40:45 -0800
> > >
> > >Greetings Phil,
> > >
> > >Saturday, December 29, 2001, 1:50:26 PM, you wrote:
> > >
> > >P> I want to connect 3 computers together. It seems to me that just
> > >P> connecting them with a USB cable would be the simplest and best way
>to
> > >do
> > >P> it? Does anyone else on this list use USB to connect computers
> > >P> together?
> > >
> > >P> Thanks,
> > >
> > >P> Link below of one company who has USB networks etc.
> > >
> > >P> http://www.lpt.com/
> > >
> > >P> Any and all comments welcome.
> > >
> > >I believe Linksys also makes USB networking kit since I've known
> > >someone who opted to setup a simple home network via USB.
> > >
> > >Is it the simplest way? Sounds like it.
> > >
> > >P> Also one more thing. I have a friend who sells computers and he
>said
> > >that
> > >P> with everything else equal, that I could see no difference in
> > >performence in
> > >P> a computer that is 1 Gig compared to 1.8 Gig ?
> > >P> Was wondering if that is true?
> > >P> I do know that back when I first got a 350 Meg computer and liked
>it
>so
> > >P> much I got my friend to build me an identical 550 Meg computer and
>side
> > >by
> > >P> side as far as me using it. I could see no difference in
>performance
> > >with
> > >P> any programs.
> > >P> Actually my old 350 (which I still use) Is faster with some
>programs
> > >than
> > >P> my sisters and brothers 500 and 600. But I have 128 Memory and
>they
> > >have
> > >P> 64, I have 32 video and they have 16, and I have 7200 hard drive
>and
> > >they
> > >P> have 5200.
> > >
> > >P> Any comments about speed?
> > >
> > >All things being equal, there are generally minimal differences in
> > >different
> > >CPUs when it comes to how fast it 'feels'.
> > >
> > >The bottleneck is usually the hard drive. I've actually seen a setup
> > >with over 1 gig of ram and the guy loaded the OS onto the ram so it
> > >would run faster. Was a pretty sweet setup. But if you begin to do
> > >computational intensive stuff, you'll notice the difference in CPUs.
> > >
> > >disclaimer: the above information is most likely incorrect :)
> > >
> > >--
> > >Wishing You Happiness,
> > > Tai Nguyen mailto:csuslistproc@xxxxxxxxx
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
|