|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Isn't the OS normally loaded in to RAM anyways? I have extra RAM with no
where to go.
Jim B.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Wynne" <tradewynne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <csuslistproc@xxxxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Computers?
> >The bottleneck is usually the hard drive.
>
> That's been my experience too. I have an old
> pII 233 that was a dog: a new 30 gig HD and Win2k
> and it's like a new machine.
>
> >I've actually seen a setup
> >with over 1 gig of ram and the guy loaded the OS onto the ram so it
> >would run faster. Was a pretty sweet setup.
>
> I had a ram drive on an old system (win 3.11?) and temp files loaded
> into ram. TS and other stuff were very fast and stable
> (a side benefit is the temp directory is purged every time
> you reboot). Anyone know how to do it in Win2K?
>
> Thanks,
>
> BW
>
>
> >From: Tai Nguyen <csuslistproc@xxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: Tai <csuslistproc@xxxxxxxxx>
> >To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: Computers?
> >Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 15:40:45 -0800
> >
> >Greetings Phil,
> >
> >Saturday, December 29, 2001, 1:50:26 PM, you wrote:
> >
> >P> I want to connect 3 computers together. It seems to me that just
> >P> connecting them with a USB cable would be the simplest and best way to
> >do
> >P> it? Does anyone else on this list use USB to connect computers
> >P> together?
> >
> >P> Thanks,
> >
> >P> Link below of one company who has USB networks etc.
> >
> >P> http://www.lpt.com/
> >
> >P> Any and all comments welcome.
> >
> >I believe Linksys also makes USB networking kit since I've known
> >someone who opted to setup a simple home network via USB.
> >
> >Is it the simplest way? Sounds like it.
> >
> >P> Also one more thing. I have a friend who sells computers and he
said
> >that
> >P> with everything else equal, that I could see no difference in
> >performence in
> >P> a computer that is 1 Gig compared to 1.8 Gig ?
> >P> Was wondering if that is true?
> >P> I do know that back when I first got a 350 Meg computer and liked it
so
> >P> much I got my friend to build me an identical 550 Meg computer and
side
> >by
> >P> side as far as me using it. I could see no difference in performance
> >with
> >P> any programs.
> >P> Actually my old 350 (which I still use) Is faster with some
programs
> >than
> >P> my sisters and brothers 500 and 600. But I have 128 Memory and they
> >have
> >P> 64, I have 32 video and they have 16, and I have 7200 hard drive and
> >they
> >P> have 5200.
> >
> >P> Any comments about speed?
> >
> >All things being equal, there are generally minimal differences in
> >different
> >CPUs when it comes to how fast it 'feels'.
> >
> >The bottleneck is usually the hard drive. I've actually seen a setup
> >with over 1 gig of ram and the guy loaded the OS onto the ram so it
> >would run faster. Was a pretty sweet setup. But if you begin to do
> >computational intensive stuff, you'll notice the difference in CPUs.
> >
> >disclaimer: the above information is most likely incorrect :)
> >
> >--
> >Wishing You Happiness,
> > Tai Nguyen mailto:csuslistproc@xxxxxxxxx
> >
>
>
>
|