> > Once more, when running the 32bit multitasking w9x series, I again
> > recommend that you do not turn off your swap file unless you have the
> > confidence to fix it should the system be unworkable as a result.
>
>Once more, when running any Windows version (including 9x), I again
>recomend that you turn off the swap file unless you want a slow system.
>Besides, Win 3.11 *is* better on multitasking.
Win 3.11 doesn't even multitask in the exact sense of the word... i think
time-sharing is the appropriate word here... but that means it spends time
on programs waiting for keyboard input... that's not multitasking in my
eyes...
About the system being faster without a swapfile... maybe you're right in
this... if all your memory needs fit in the RAM, it's ok... if you do have
a swapfile, i guess Windows will swap the pages out that you aren't using at
the moment, even if it could still fit them in the RAM... 'cause the more
RAM you give Windows the more RAM it will use for its own....
> > Yes,
> > more RAM is always useful, although more than 128MB is excessive by most
> > standards and not often used.
>
>More than 64MB is too much.
>
> > 32 is the minimum for comfort, especially on
> > w98, less will slow you down and use your hard drive swap file
> > excessively.
>
>32 is enough and will not make your system slow and unstable if you turn
>off the swap file. (If you are using graphics and/or games this may be too
>little but it's enough for Office and InterNet applications).
What i think about this: the more RAM you have, the better... i don't think
128Mb is excessive.... if i had to choose between a 10% faster CPU or
additional RAM, i'd take the additional RAM... especially if you're a real
multitasker... and even more especially if you're a Java user/programmer...
if you can get all the files you have to compile cached in memory, you can
speed up the compiling process enormously... i'm talking about a serious
project (100+ files)... i think this same goes for any big programming
projects in whatever language...
> > I like to run many
> > tasks at once, letting a page load on the www while I check a message or
> > two, keeping various utilities open and running, maintaining an IRC
> > presence, etc.
>
>Me too (at times), and that worked fine even with 16MB RAM under Windows
>NT on a P120 (once again no swap). What programs was I running? Office 97,
>Netscape, mIRC and the usual stuff (Explorer, WinAMP etc.)
>And did I mention that I often use up all 10 windows in Netscape?
i can't believe this... i have also a P120, have Windows95 (and i assume
WinNT consumes more memory dan Win95) and it already was trashing like hell
when only doing some image processing.... (that's when i only had 16Mb RAM)
but maybe you're talking about the days that frames didn't yet exist,
NetScape Navigator 3.04 ruled and the Web was still text-based (i mean that
you didn't lose any content by turning of the images)
piwi
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
