I was comparing Vista64 to XP32 (which I was using), not XP64. I imagine XP64 would probably allow one to run as many instances of AB as Vista64. But from what I could gather, XP64 seemed less reliable/stable/supported than Vista64, so I went with the latter.
Been using Vista64 on an overclocked i7 PC, with 12GB ddr3 ram now for about a week. Certainly a big difference over my XP32 install. Yesterday I ran 8 large walk-forward tests in parallel (1-min databases, several years), no problem. Didn't even come close to maxing out the system. The XP32 install would tend to hang/crash if I tried 3 such parallel runs. Will play around with multiple instances over the next few weeks to see just how far I can push things. And once I turned off that annoying UAC thing, haven't noticed any disadvantages yet with Vista. Maybe its bad reputation was only warranted in the first year it was out - with respect to driver issues and other problems. All that stuff seems to have been cleared up in the latest service packs. --- In [email protected], Keith McCombs <kmcco...@...> wrote: > > Ozzy -- > What makes you think that, given the same hardware, Vista64 allows you > to run more instances of AB than XP64? > > TJ -- > Thanks for your comments on the subject. Admittedly, I didn't > understand how he was doing the testing. > > All -- > Once again I would like to suggest: > "How about writing some benchmarks in afl? I assume the code wouldn't > have to be very complex, nor would it have to be for any sort of > 'winning' system. Just something that everyone could run and we could > get some comparative speed results." We might also need to make a > static artificial data base so that everyone was running the same test. > > That would help many of us when it comes time to buy a new, or update an > older, computer. > -- Keith > > ozzyapeman wrote: > > > > Thanks for the clarification. > > > > My understanding then, based on what I can gather from the net, is > > that Windows Vista 64-bit will give me the sole advantage of allowing > > me to run many more instances of AmiBroker, especially with the i7 > > processor and 12 GB of RAM, vs on WinXP. > > > > In that way, I can run more large optimizations simultaneously, > > without running out of memory, thus saving a lot of time overall. > > > > I had come across one article that tested as much, with other 32-bit > > apps running on XP32 vs Vista64, and the difference in multitasking > > ability was huge. > > > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Tomasz Janeczko" <groups@> wrote: > > > > > > Those Windows Vista tests were made using Microsoft SQL server. > > > > > > AmiBroker does NOT use Microsoft SQL server or any other 3rd party DB. > > > It uses own original low-level database that is highly specialized > > > for quote processing is pretty independent from operating system. > > > It works equally well on every Windows version > > > (starting from Win95 and ending at Windows 7). > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Tomasz Janeczko > > > amibroker.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "ozzyapeman" <zoopfree@> > > > To: <[email protected] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:17 AM > > > Subject: [amibroker] Re: OT: Computer recommendation for AB optimizing > > > > > > > > > > Whoa. Just read that article. Seems that WinXP 64 makes better > > sense by far to drive my new Intel i7 PC. The speed difference is > > > > quite significant. I might have just wasted money shelling out on > > a Vista 64-bit installation disk. > > > > > > > > Is Amibroker 32-bit pretty stable on WinXP 64? I only have > > experience running it on WinXP 32. > > > > > > > > If I only plan on running AmiBroker 5.24, TWS 892, and other basic > > 32-bit trading tools on the PC (and maybe Firefox and Outlook), > > > > would WinXP 64 be the way to go, or are there hidden disadvantages > > in going with that OS? > > > > > > > > I am aiming for the fastest backtesting platform possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > > <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>, Keith McCombs <kmccombs@> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Dingo -- > > > >> Please read > > > >> > > http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/22/03TC-windows-multicore_3.html > > <http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/22/03TC-windows-multicore_3.html> > > > >> for some comparisons between Vista64 and XP64. > > > >> -- Keith > > > >> > > > >> dingo wrote: > > > >> > 50% longer for AB to run - hardly believable. > > > >> > > > > >> > d > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Keith McCombs <kmccombs@ > > > >> > <mailto:kmccombs@>> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > A few personal thoughts: > > > >> > 1. The 2.93GHz costs $470 more than 2.66. I doubt that very many > > > >> > of us can tell the difference without a stopwatch. > > > >> > > > > >> > 2. I don't know about running AB, but in many published speed > > > >> > tests, Vista64 takes about 50% longer than XP64. > > > >> > > > > >> > -- Keith > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > ozzyapeman wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Thanks. I was looking into i7 based-PCs. But aren't all i7's > > > >> >> quad-cores to begin with? And apparently the OS sees an i7 as > > > >> >> 8-core due to the way it's designed. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Dell seems to have a good deal on i7 XPS desktops at 2.93 Ghz > > > >> >> > > > >> >> --- In [email protected] > > <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> > > > >> >> <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>, dingo <waledingo@> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Intel dual core i7 with fast clock - AB only uses 1 core. 3gig > > > >> >> mem. Intel > > > >> >> > SLC flash (if you've got the money otherwise WD Raptor). Medium > > > >> >> video card. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > d > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:57 AM, ozzyapeman <zoopfree@> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > I should add that I need to run exhaustive optimizations, as > > > >> >> opposed to > > > >> >> > > CMAE or using Fred's IO, as my variables are discontinuous - > > > >> >> not traditional > > > >> >> > > indicator-type variables. > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > In my parallel dream life, I run AB Ultra Professional 7.0 on > > > >> >> 8 state of > > > >> >> > > the art graphics cards, with thousands of processors, 500,000 > > > >> >> times faster > > > >> >> > > than good old AB 5.24. > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > But I digress. ;-) > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > In the real world, what is the best I can do? > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > --- In [email protected] > > <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> > > > >> >> <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>, "ozzyapeman" <zoopfree@> > > wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > Now that I am just about trading full time, my main PC has > > > >> >> become a > > > >> >> > > dedicated trading computer. That only leaves me with a clunky > > > >> >> second PC > > > >> >> > > (6-years old) for doing offline optimizing. And it's waaay > > > >> >> too slow. > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > So I am in the market for a new PC, and want to get > > > >> >> something powerful, > > > >> >> > > but don't want to overpay for stuff that won't be used. For > > > >> >> example, 8GB of > > > >> >> > > RAM sounds great, but if WinXP only uses 4GB (or 3?) then I > > > >> >> imagine the > > > >> >> > > other 4 GB just goes to waste? > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > If I plan to use this PC mainly for offline optimizing and > > > >> >> backtesting, > > > >> >> > > what are the recommended specs? I want as much speed as I can > > > >> >> possibly get. > > > >> >> > > My optimizations tend to be humongous, taking days on a quad > > > >> >> core. > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > Any hardware gurus please feel free to chime in: > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > - RAM? > > > >> >> > > > - Quad-core vs Eight-core? > > > >> >> > > > - OS? > > > >> >> > > > - HD type (flash vs mechanical)? > > > >> >> > > > - any other hardware/software suggestions for increasing > > speed? > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > Thanks! > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > ------------------------------------ > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > **** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ **** > > > >> >> > > This group is for the discussion between users only. > > > >> >> > > This is *NOT* technical support channel. > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to > > > >> >> > > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com <http://amibroker.com/ > > <http://amibroker.com/>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at > > > >> >> > > http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/ > > <http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/> > > > >> >> <http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/ > > <http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/>> > > > >> >> > > (submissions sent via other channels won't be considered) > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check > > DEVLOG: > > > >> >> > > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ > > <http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/> > > > >> >> <http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ > > <http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > **** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ **** > > > > This group is for the discussion between users only. > > > > This is *NOT* technical support channel. > > > > > > > > TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to > > > > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com > > > > > > > > TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at > > > > http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/ > > <http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/> > > > > (submissions sent via other channels won't be considered) > > > > > > > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG: > > > > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ <http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
