SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 36 of 36
  1. #26
    SitePoint Wizard Aes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Stuartd. You sure about that? I've tried adding (and subsequently ended up deleting) several things from the system.ini file before becuase people claimed they worked, and in reality I noticed no difference (or Windoze ended up going slower!).
    Colin Anderson
    Ambition is a poor excuse for those without
    sense enough to be lazy.

  2. #27
    SitePoint Enthusiast stuartd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Absolutely positive. I use it on every system I use now. And I always recommend it to friends. I've set it up on my families computers, because they have pretty bad ones, with like 64 megs or less of ram.

    Just try it. Honestly... if you still end up with a big swap file, or there's no improvement... than sure, feel free to remove it again. There's no harm or damage done either way. And no, it will not slow down your computer in the slightest.

    I've heard about tons of lines too, and most didn't do anything... so I was skeptical. But my friend insisted, so I tried it. And like I said, I haven't seen a swap file size larger than 0 since, no matter how many applications I open and close.

    Give it a shot. Put in that line, reboot... and check your swap file. Maybe run a major game or application, and check your swap file. See if there's anything there, or at least, see if it's as large a swap file as it was before.

    Again.. the line is...
    system.ini
    [386enh]
    ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

    Stuart Duncan
    www.Logiforms.com
    stu@logiforms.com

  3. #28
    SitePoint Wizard Aes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Okay I did it and restarted. Seems to work a little faster with an SSH client I'm using through shell access. I'll run a large application and see how it handles. Then I'll let ya know. Thanks.
    Colin Anderson
    Ambition is a poor excuse for those without
    sense enough to be lazy.

  4. #29
    SitePoint Enthusiast OdIgO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Where you live
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use this program called "MemDefrag"
    Defrags and clears out RAM. Works wonderful, I've gone from like 20MB to like 35 and 40MB..(128MB total, i need more!)
    http://www.freecfm.com/p/prmagic/
    --my small personal site *sigh*
    If you'd like to write Articles(for the site), email me!

  5. #30
    SitePoint Wizard TWTCommish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My apologies if this has already been said, but speak for yourself! I have 256MB of RAM on my main computer, and I have around 65-70% of all resources available -- and that's after ZoneAlarm, Norton AntiVirus, and a couple other boot-up programs have loaded.

  6. #31
    SitePoint Enthusiast OdIgO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Where you live
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Seer
    I installed Linux on an older computer, AMD K6 300 with 64mb's memory and it runs suprisingly well. Windows on the same machine would be chugging away non-stop. Until popular programs that run on windows are available for use with Linux, it's great to use but not all that useful for me. I just upgraded to Win2k and the improvements alone should keep me satisfied for a while.
    I installed Linux on a Pentium 133MHz with 64MB RAM and a 9GB 5400RPM Hard drive and it zoomed! Even after a month or so it still zipped like it was freshly booted! Linux is wonderful... (that was SuSE 6.4)
    http://www.freecfm.com/p/prmagic/
    --my small personal site *sigh*
    If you'd like to write Articles(for the site), email me!

  7. #32
    Fluffy Kitten Programmer~ Elledan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by TWTCommish
    My apologies if this has already been said, but speak for yourself! I have 256MB of RAM on my main computer, and I have around 65-70% of all resources available -- and that's after ZoneAlarm, Norton AntiVirus, and a couple other boot-up programs have loaded.
    Resources != RAM. You can have 5% resources available, and still the system will work fine.

    I use Win2k and Linux (SuSe 7.1) on two PC's. 384 MB RAM in the Win2k PC, 160 MB RAM in the Linux box. I can leave them running for weeks and will notice no difference between both systems, except that the Win2k PC seems to have become a bit more sluggish. The Linux system seems to stay the same. It has never crashed on me either, unlike the Windows box.

    Win95 and Win98 are okay, but you'll have to reboot quite often to free resources. WinME is the worst (P)OS I've ever seen. It needs at least 192 MB RAM, wants always more and the only advantage it has over Win98 is that because it reboots much quicker, you'll earlier be up and running after a crash. While Win98 runs normally or stable enough on 90% of the systems it's installed on, WinME crashes reguarly on those 90% and is sometimes impossible to work with between crashes and lock-ups. I know only very few people who are happy with WinME.
    www.nyanko.ws - My web-, software- and game development company.
    www.mayaposch.com - My personal site and blog.

  8. #33
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    1,483
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here I have very heavy RAM usage - according to task manager:
    261948k/632832k
    59 processes

    But as you can see by my high process count, I have a lot running and I think it's coping pretty well. I have just ordered a little more RAM to make sure it never enters virtual memory (as this happens quite a lot) and it's so cheap at the moment that it is well worth it.

    While task manager reports very high figures (usually over my physical amount of ram), I rarely experience slow downs or problems (and I have an old, slow hard drive). I'm also on constant 100% CPU usage due to various bits running (including a pop/smtp mail server and the United Devices agent).

    I've been using Windows 2000 since it was called NT 5 (beta 1/2) and I've always found it to be perfect for me. Back when I was using the betas, I did get quite a lot of crashes and bad mem usage problems but not nearly as bad as 98 which I was on before, but now I experience nil problems.

    And Windows isn't the only thing guilty of large amounts of recommended RAM - I believe RedHat Linux 7 requires 64 (might be 32 though) and recommends 96/128, which is similar to Windows 2000. 2000 Pro requires 32mb (which I did use on that amount for a while ) and the Server editions need 64 (and yes I've done that as well ).

  9. #34
    Sports Publisher mjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    5,891
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by TWTCommish
    My apologies if this has already been said, but speak for yourself! I have 256MB of RAM on my main computer, and I have around 65-70% of all resources available -- and that's after ZoneAlarm, Norton AntiVirus, and a couple other boot-up programs have loaded.
    That's the same for me, after I first reboot, I can have about that amount of programs open and it gives me like 75% available. But really counts is how long that lasts. In Win9x, if you have that stuff open over long periods of time and keep opening and closing various programs, your resources available will shrink considerably. That's why I chose Win2K on my soon-to-arrive Dell - because it has much better memory management and leaks are far less common from what I hear.

  10. #35
    Node mutilating coot timnz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    516
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I can relate to you James, well not quite, but nearly, I ran Win2k Pro on 64mb's of RAM for about 6 months, I thought it wasn't too bad, that is until I upgraded to 128mb's. Boy did only 64mb seem slow then! Also got a couple of BSOD/Reboots when running on 64mb a month, but now with 128, it is more like only 1 or 2 BSOD/Reboots a month, guess that is the price you pay for running crap cheap hardware

  11. #36
    SitePoint Wizard Aes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When it comes to the bottom line, I think most people (as well as myself) will agree the various flavors of Linux are the best bets. Linux has enough programs to counter the plethora of Windoze programs (many of which are unnecissary anyway). Plus, Linux runs and operates considerably better than its Windows counterparts. I have Mandrake 7.2 (soon to be 8.0) as soon as I can get a new harddrive (or new computer) for that matter. Until then, I'm stuck with this memory hogging little beauty.
    ::looks unaffectionately at Win98SE::
    Colin Anderson
    Ambition is a poor excuse for those without
    sense enough to be lazy.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •