From: Juan-Carlos Lerman (jclerman_at_netzero.net)
Date: Sun Aug 01 1999 - 11:15:26 EDT
Vincent Poy wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, richard wrote:
> > At 07:47 AM 8/1/99 -0700, Vincent Poy wrote:
> > > Oops, guess you missed that part... I have 256MB of RAM on a 770Z
> > >9549-8AU. I had 128MB RAM two days ago... Just upgraded two days ago
> > >using the $197 Crucial/Micron 128MB memory module... Funny thing is the
> >
> > Have you noticed any difference in performance between 128mb and 256mb?
>
> Not really... I thought it would increase the resources available
> but it didn't.
I didn't find the resource meter to be much related to
performance, and now: what do you call performance?
I'm running on Win95.
My preliminary data show that if I measure "performance"
by time for one iteration in the Prime95 program,
performance goes somewhat down when RAM is larger than
the cacheable RAM (64 KB in my case).
But if I measure "performance" by time to load a browser,
download a file, move a window around the screen, and "LESS
CRASHES PER DAY" then "more is better" (at least in the
range between 32 to 128 MB).
When the system gets sluggish and I see no free RAM, I
reboot before waiting for a crash... I guess this was
the technique used in 1980 with timesharing mainframes
like the DEC-10.
JC
________________________________________________________
NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you?
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:13 EST