From: Allan Ballard (aballard_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: Fri Feb 11 2000 - 04:38:16 EST
Ok, thanks. That makes sense.
My 760xl has 104Mb,half of which is uncached.
I keep meaning to do some tests comparing it to
64Mb but it's too much bother.
At any rate, I run a lo of stuff atonce.
Allan Ballrd
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 20:35:27 -0700, Tom Franklin wrote:
>That is why I said "under certain circumstances".
>
>For example, say you have 40 MB in 701 and run Win95 with only one
>application running at a time. You probably don't swap much. Going to 72
>MB where the upper half is uncached could be slower. Esp. since Windows
>loads the uncached area first since it is usually at the top of memory.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>> I thought writing to uncached memory was always
>> faster than writing to a disk swapper file?
>>
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 22:18:30 -0700, Tom Franklin wrote:
>> >Before everyone runs out and upgrades to 72 Megs, you better be sure that
>> >all the extra memory is cached. Adding memory that is not cached can
>> >actually slow down your machine under certain circumstances.
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > Tried a 64 meg SO-DIMM.
>> >> > speed 60, wait state 4, non-parity,.
>> >> > It takes a thinkpad a while to count to 72 megs.
>> >> > So far, no problems. I will see how battery life is,
>> >> > if it hangs, that type of thing. It has not done much
>> >> > to improve Win 95 over 40 megs. Win 98 users
>> >> > May see more of a boost.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:48 EST