> Any reason to have 256 of RAM instead of 512 as far as possible
> conflicts go on older sims? I am putting together an Athlon XP system
> with DDRam, probably with Windows 98SE since most here seem to like
> that OS for sims. I remember hearing of conflicts with 256 in this
> forum, or was that just with older motherboards?
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
"Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the....." - Ash
Andi.
cause conflicts. Win9X
some apps to go haywire, but
> "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
> alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
> the....." - Ash
> > Any reason to have 256 of RAM instead of 512 as far as possible
> > conflicts go on older sims? I am putting together an Athlon XP system
> > with DDRam, probably with Windows 98SE since most here seem to like
> > that OS for sims. I remember hearing of conflicts with 256 in this
> > forum, or was that just with older motherboards?
Well, the more ram you have then the less virtual memory will be accessed.
But Windows needs VM to function correctly so never disable it even if you
have 1gb of ram. As to how much? Some games require lots, some don't.
Personally I have mine set to 600mb min/max and have had no problems with
that setting yet, I have 512mb of ram. HD space is cheap so it's best to
play it safe and set it to the high side rather than take chances with
setting it to a low amount.
Thanks for the help Goy and Biz.
Tim
> Beers and cheers
> (uncle) Goy
> Must be some other un-related problem, because amount of memory doesn't cause
> conflicts. Win9X
> based systems can't correctly access more than 512MB ram, and it causes some
> apps to go haywire, but
> with 512 you can't go wrong as long as the motherboard supports that much.
> --
> Biz
> "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
> alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
> the....." - Ash
> > Any reason to have 256 of RAM instead of 512 as far as possible
> > conflicts go on older sims? I am putting together an Athlon XP system
> > with DDRam, probably with Windows 98SE since most here seem to like
> > that OS for sims. I remember hearing of conflicts with 256 in this
> > forum, or was that just with older motherboards?
"Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the....." - Ash
> Andi.
> > Must be some other un-related problem, because amount of memory doesn't
> cause conflicts. Win9X
> > based systems can't correctly access more than 512MB ram, and it causes
> some apps to go haywire, but
> > with 512 you can't go wrong as long as the motherboard supports that much.
> > --
> > Biz
> > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
> > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
> > the....." - Ash
> > > Any reason to have 256 of RAM instead of 512 as far as possible
> > > conflicts go on older sims? I am putting together an Athlon XP system
> > > with DDRam, probably with Windows 98SE since most here seem to like
> > > that OS for sims. I remember hearing of conflicts with 256 in this
> > > forum, or was that just with older motherboards?
setting it manually or
a well-tuned system...
Define the performance difference one is supposed to notice. Maybe you were
expecting too much, but logic dictates that letting windows manage it will
result in a fragmented swap file. That impacts disk access performance when
it needs to access the swap file. Unless you defragment all the time it
should make some difference if you have a permannet swap file of a fixed
size opposed to a dynamic one. No one said you would notice a big
performance increase, but it does make a difference no matter how negligible
it actually is.
> > Honestly, I haven't been able to witness any performance differences by
> setting it manually or
> > leaving it to let Windows manage.....so I think its a bunch of baloney
on
> a well-tuned system...
> Define the performance difference one is supposed to notice. Maybe you
were
> expecting too much, but logic dictates that letting windows manage it will
> result in a fragmented swap file. That impacts disk access performance
when
> it needs to access the swap file. Unless you defragment all the time it
> should make some difference if you have a permannet swap file of a fixed
> size opposed to a dynamic one. No one said you would notice a big
> performance increase, but it does make a difference no matter how
negligible
> it actually is.
If a difference is "negligible," which means it's not significant or
important enough to be *worth considering*, then saying a "negligible"
difference DOES "make a difference" (i.e., should be considered significant
or noticeable) can be considered, as we say in the vernacular, a steaming
pile of convoluted contradictory crapola! Much like my last sentence here.
:0)
I believe the original poster is correct and you are correct as well. In
this case, however, two rights have in fact made one wrong. You disagreed
while at the same time corroborated his position. What did I just say? Now
I'm confused.
I am NOT seriously flaming you here, I'm just having fun with your <cough>
questionable <cough> choice of words. :0)
Regards,
Joe Marques
> > Honestly, I haven't been able to witness any performance differences by
> setting it manually or
> > leaving it to let Windows manage.....so I think its a bunch of baloney
on
> a well-tuned system...
> Define the performance difference one is supposed to notice. Maybe you
were
> expecting too much, but logic dictates that letting windows manage it will
> result in a fragmented swap file. That impacts disk access performance
when
> it needs to access the swap file. Unless you defragment all the time it
> should make some difference if you have a permannet swap file of a fixed
> size opposed to a dynamic one. No one said you would notice a big
> performance increase, but it does make a difference no matter how
negligible
> it actually is.
Er... That might be true for Win95 but I don't think using that for Win98
and up is a good idea, and certainly not under XP. It was explained to me by
an MSCE and I can't remember the exact reason, but I do know you shouldn't
use that line unless using Win95.
OK, replace "negligible" with "small". :-)
> > And add the line "ConservativeSwapFileUseage=1" to the [386Enh] stanza
of
> > yer system.ini file, so that oft-accessed stuff is stored first in RAM,
> and
> > only on the HD when it runs out of faster memory. That's all part of a
> > "well-tuned" system....
> Er... That might be true for Win95 but I don't think using that for Win98
> and up is a good idea, and certainly not under XP. It was explained to me
by
> an MSCE and I can't remember the exact reason, but I do know you shouldn't
> use that line unless using Win95.
The original poster was asking Qs, not making statements. How is his Q
"correct"?
--Confused 2
> If a difference is "negligible," which means it's not significant or
> important enough to be *worth considering*, then saying a "negligible"
> difference DOES "make a difference" (i.e., should be considered
significant
> or noticeable) can be considered, as we say in the vernacular, a steaming
> pile of convoluted contradictory crapola! Much like my last sentence
here.
> :0)
> I believe the original poster is correct and you are correct as well. In
> this case, however, two rights have in fact made one wrong. You disagreed
> while at the same time corroborated his position. What did I just say?
Now
> I'm confused.
> I am NOT seriously flaming you here, I'm just having fun with your <cough>
> questionable <cough> choice of words. :0)
> Regards,
> Joe Marques
> > > Honestly, I haven't been able to witness any performance differences
by
> > setting it manually or
> > > leaving it to let Windows manage.....so I think its a bunch of baloney
> on
> > a well-tuned system...
> > Define the performance difference one is supposed to notice. Maybe you
> were
> > expecting too much, but logic dictates that letting windows manage it
will
> > result in a fragmented swap file. That impacts disk access performance
> when
> > it needs to access the swap file. Unless you defragment all the time it
> > should make some difference if you have a permannet swap file of a fixed
> > size opposed to a dynamic one. No one said you would notice a big
> > performance increase, but it does make a difference no matter how
> negligible
> > it actually is.
I said I can't remember the reason why. I never said there is no reason why!
Lot's of these tweaks are parroted from site to site and are out of date and
do more harm than good. Fixed swap file is ok, but the other one is not
unless using Win95. Are you still using Win95?
Probably not.
