If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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." . |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 . |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 . . |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 . |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Resource Kit Updates? | Abraham | General | 18 | February 8th 05 12:11 PM |
Resource Kit | Abraham | General | 4 | January 8th 05 07:19 PM |
Troubleshooting a resource conflict. | Squeaky | General | 6 | December 30th 04 10:59 PM |
Disk - Resource Conflict | George S | Disk Drives | 2 | July 2nd 04 08:50 AM |
Error message: "Resource Conflict PCI" | Brad Gurman | General | 2 | June 13th 04 01:10 PM |