A Resource Hog.

Hello Ron,

The view out of my window is significant! And yours too, I
expect.

Thanks for posting. My Swapfile usage is within the
parameters you mention. If you have any thoughts about
the "Resource Hog" problem with which this thread began I
would appreciate your input. I think the problem is still
existent in spite of my setting a low priority for
AwaveAudio in Process Explorer.

Regards, Ron.

-----Original Message-----
"Ben B" wrote:

Hello Galen,

Thanks for the detailed response. Yes I have 384MB of
PC100 SDRAM in two slots. I can't tell whether or not my
mobo will support PC133 SDRAM from the stats obtained in
Everest All the stas I found are mentioned in my first
post.

PC100 SDRAM is cheap you say. How much do you suggest I
might add? Another 256MB in the third slot? Or two
sticks
of 128MB in slots 3 and 4? or 2 sticks of 256MB in slots
3
and 4?


Adding more memory can noticeably improve performance
only if the
added memory results in reduced usage of the virtual
memory swap file.
Therefore if the swap file is not currently being used to
any
significant extent then adding more memory will not
provide a
significant improvement.

Before installing more RAM use the System Monitor utility
that comes
with Windows and use Edit - Add to set it to
track "Memory manager:
Swap file in use" for several days of normal to heavy
usage. If "Swap
file in use" regularly shows as 20 mb or more then the
swap file is
being used extensively and more memory would result in
improved
performance. Otherwise it is not likely to make any
noticeable
difference.

This applies regardless of how much or how little RAM is
currently
installed in the computer.

There is a configuration setting that needs to be entered
if you are
going above 512 mb of RAM with Windows 95/98/Me and there
are possible
hardware related problems that can occur with more than 1
gb of RAM
with these Windows versions.

Good luck





Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers
don't eat much."
.

In ,
Ben B had this to say:


Thank-you, Galen. Noel has my e-mail address and I would
very much like to have yours.

I'd have sent it to your mail but, well, I do not know your address to send
it to.

Your best bet is kinggaleniii (at) gmail.com normally. I check that one
pretty often.
kgiii_mvp (at) hotmail.com from my MVP days is also good and one that I keep
on hand all the time now.
Barring a lack of response at any of those try putting Galen or KGIII in the
subject, it will flag it for reading.

Galen
--

"My mind rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me
the most abstruse cryptogram or the most intricate analysis, and I am
in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial
stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for
mental exaltation." -- Sherlock Holmes

Rick T wrote:



I don't see any reason to go out and blow $100 on new memory; 384 is
WinME's "sweet spot" and if it works, don't mess with it.

There is no such thing as a "sweet spot" amount of RAM for any version
of Windows. Period. The optimum amount of RAM for any given user
will depend on the Windows version and on how that person actually
uses the computer - which applications are run, how many are open at
any given time, and the size of the data files used by those
applications being major factors.

The critical measurement is actual usage of the virtual memory swap
file (page file in 2000/XP).


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

Ron Martell wrote:

There is no such thing as a "sweet spot" amount of RAM for any version
of Windows. Period.

Yeah, thanks Ron... "sweet spot" as in "for average user the
bang-per-buck decreases after this point more or less" . So there's a
big difference in between having 256 and 384, less of a difference
between 384 and 512.


Rick

Ben B wrote:
Hello Rick,

Thanks for the input.

As far as my original concern goes the software
manufacturer responded to me (see my response to Noel) and
I really have not moved very far.

What about Galen's observation that my installed memory is
PC100 SDRAM and what my mobo will accept is PC133 SDRAM?

IIRC, the P3V4x allows asynchronous FSB/memory operation, but check your
Owner's Manual, ie: you can put 133Mhz Memory in there with your
100Mhz(FSB) processor and both will run at their rated speeds.

Since you've already solved the issue you were having I personally don't
see any reason to "upgrade" your hardware, especially with memsticks
that you won't be able to transfer to a new motherboard (it's been
several years since vanilla SDRAM was the industry standard).

Your call though.


Rick
CuV4x/P3-667/512MB

You may wish to use HDTach 3.0.1.0
to assess the speed of your disk system:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=672

The trial will only do the "read" test, but that is fine for your purpose
here.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Ben B" wrote in message
...
Hello Noel,

Here is an excerpt from his response to my enquiry:

"I can see no obvious reason why Awave Audio should make
your system so 'unresponsive' while you are running a
conversion. That certainly is not normally the case -
Awave Audio runs as a normal Windows 'process' and it is
up to the operating system to make sure that things run
smoothly and that all applications receive their fair
slice of "cpu time". I can only think of two suggestions
for you:
1) Awave Audio use does a lot of reading and writing to
files. So if the disk access runs slowly then maybe
Windows is sitting a lot 'unresponsive' while waiting for
that. So first try running the disk "defragmentation tool"
that comes with Windows. If you have an older hard disk
then getting a newer and faster one *might* help."

If, down the course of time, Noel, something else occurs
to you, well, I would, of course be most grateful to hear
from you.

Thanks.

Ben.


SNIP

Hello Jack,

First of all my thanks for the suggestion. I will use it.
And post back.

This thread has been a little confusing for me but only in
the sense of all the input and the seeming differences of
opinion about some aspects of the efficient use, and
amounts installed, of RAM.

I am very surprised, however, to find my original post
still near the top of the list. When I first came to these
Newsgroups (3-4 years ago) new threads were plentiful.

The original HD I use only as backup. A WD400JB purchased
last year in now in use as Master. It is a 7200 rpm with a
2MB buffer. And I imagine the speed of "the disk system"
may be referring to this. My understanding and knowledge
is still very sketchy after 4 years, Jack.

I had to download the version 2.7 as the 3.0.1.0 is now
only for NT/2000. I will get on with it. And post again
later.

Thaks, Jack.

Ben.


-----Original Message-----
You may wish to use HDTach 3.0.1.0
to assess the speed of your disk system:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=672

The trial will only do the "read" test, but that is fine
for your purpose
here.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for
Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...tect/default.a
spx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Ben B" wrote in
message
...
Hello Noel,

Here is an excerpt from his response to my enquiry:

"I can see no obvious reason why Awave Audio should make
your system so 'unresponsive' while you are running a
conversion. That certainly is not normally the case -
Awave Audio runs as a normal Windows 'process' and it is
up to the operating system to make sure that things run
smoothly and that all applications receive their fair
slice of "cpu time". I can only think of two suggestions
for you:
1) Awave Audio use does a lot of reading and writing to
files. So if the disk access runs slowly then maybe
Windows is sitting a lot 'unresponsive' while waiting
for
that. So first try running the disk "defragmentation
tool"
that comes with Windows. If you have an older hard disk
then getting a newer and faster one *might* help."

If, down the course of time, Noel, something else occurs
to you, well, I would, of course be most grateful to
hear
from you.

Thanks.

Ben.


SNIP


.

Hello Jack,

Some figures from HD Tach. On the WD400JB 40GB HD

Sequential Speed Max 48.8 Min 43.1 Av. 47.4 MB/s

Random Access 9.8 ms

Read Burst Speed 59.5 MB/s

CPU Utilization 10.3%

How does it help, Jack? Where/how would a problem related
to my 'resource hog' software issue be indicated using
this tool?

Thanks.

Ben.

-----Original Message-----
Hello Jack,

First of all my thanks for the suggestion. I will use it.
And post back.

This thread has been a little confusing for me but only
in
the sense of all the input and the seeming differences of
opinion about some aspects of the efficient use, and
amounts installed, of RAM.

I am very surprised, however, to find my original post
still near the top of the list. When I first came to
these
Newsgroups (3-4 years ago) new threads were plentiful.

The original HD I use only as backup. A WD400JB purchased
last year in now in use as Master. It is a 7200 rpm with
a
2MB buffer. And I imagine the speed of "the disk system"
may be referring to this. My understanding and knowledge
is still very sketchy after 4 years, Jack.

I had to download the version 2.7 as the 3.0.1.0 is now
only for NT/2000. I will get on with it. And post again
later.

Thaks, Jack.

Ben.


-----Original Message-----
You may wish to use HDTach 3.0.1.0
to assess the speed of your disk system:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=672

The trial will only do the "read" test, but that is fine
for your purpose
here.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for
Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...rotect/default.
a
spx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Ben B" wrote in
message
...
Hello Noel,

Here is an excerpt from his response to my enquiry:

"I can see no obvious reason why Awave Audio should
make
your system so 'unresponsive' while you are running a
conversion. That certainly is not normally the case -
Awave Audio runs as a normal Windows 'process' and it
is
up to the operating system to make sure that things run
smoothly and that all applications receive their fair
slice of "cpu time". I can only think of two
suggestions
for you:
1) Awave Audio use does a lot of reading and writing to
files. So if the disk access runs slowly then maybe
Windows is sitting a lot 'unresponsive' while waiting
for
that. So first try running the disk "defragmentation
tool"
that comes with Windows. If you have an older hard disk
then getting a newer and faster one *might* help."

If, down the course of time, Noel, something else
occurs
to you, well, I would, of course be most grateful to
hear
from you.

Thanks.

Ben.


SNIP


.

.

The CPU Utilization result indicates that DMA is working fine and the system
is not in PIO.

The speed max of 48.8, presumably MBps, and the read burst speed of 59.5
MBps, is less than expected for an ATA 133 system, so your disk controller
may be ATA 100.
If the controller is on the mainboard, a faster upgrade would entail a PCI
ATA 133 controller card to replace the on-board disk controller.
While such a card is only $US 30.00 today, the performance improvement is
not (may not be?) cost effective. Only you can decide.
IMO, this is a minor performance issue, since you have previously reported
that your drive rpm = 7200, IIRC, and, therefore, no inexpensive
improvement is available for this factor.

A new box using SATA, at 150 MBps, at 7200 or 10,000 rpm, might be best, at
this time, IF SUCH PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED BY YOU.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Ben B" wrote in message
...
Hello Jack,

Some figures from HD Tach. On the WD400JB 40GB HD

Sequential Speed Max 48.8 Min 43.1 Av. 47.4 MB/s

Random Access 9.8 ms

Read Burst Speed 59.5 MB/s

CPU Utilization 10.3%

How does it help, Jack? Where/how would a problem related
to my 'resource hog' software issue be indicated using
this tool?

Thanks.

Ben.


SNIP

That is very clear, Jack.

My thanks.
-----Original Message-----
The CPU Utilization result indicates that DMA is working
fine and the system
is not in PIO.

The speed max of 48.8, presumably MBps, and the read
burst speed of 59.5
MBps, is less than expected for an ATA 133 system, so
your disk controller
may be ATA 100.
If the controller is on the mainboard, a faster upgrade
would entail a PCI
ATA 133 controller card to replace the on-board disk
controller.
While such a card is only $US 30.00 today, the
performance improvement is
not (may not be?) cost effective. Only you can decide.
IMO, this is a minor performance issue, since you have
previously reported
that your drive rpm = 7200, IIRC, and, therefore, no
inexpensive
improvement is available for this factor.

A new box using SATA, at 150 MBps, at 7200 or 10,000
rpm, might be best, at
this time, IF SUCH PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED BY
YOU.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for
Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...tect/default.a
spx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Ben B" wrote in
message
...
Hello Jack,

Some figures from HD Tach. On the WD400JB 40GB HD

Sequential Speed Max 48.8 Min 43.1 Av. 47.4
MB/s

Random Access 9.8 ms

Read Burst Speed 59.5 MB/s

CPU Utilization 10.3%

How does it help, Jack? Where/how would a problem
related
to my 'resource hog' software issue be indicated using
this tool?

Thanks.

Ben.


SNIP


.