> I have a computer running BOINC E@H with 128 MB RAM & WIN98, usually
> without much else running. Whether there is a significant penalty for such a
> small amount of memory is not clear. The CPU is an AthlonXP at 1700 MHz &
> does an E@H work unit in 30500 sec. I tried win2k first & it would not
> run.
This is a little about personal preferences and "feel", but, since Win95 I have been recommending 256M for systems as a minimum, for the Windows NT line, now including all versions of XP should have minimum of 512M.
People do say that they can get by with less, but, it is *MY* belief that performance suffers. WIth memory being as cheap as it has been for quite some time there is not much cause to not get more than "needed".
I usually don't put less than 1G now, in part because of this. When you start to add things like "Keep in Memory", well, the more memory the better.
> Again, real world constraints make real-world machines slower than the
> theoretical limits, but I find it mind boggling that our home computers are
> now fast enough that relativity sets meaningful limits to their performance,
> and within a factor of five of the practical limits.
One of the reasons that the Cray computers at one time were made in a semi-circle ... to reduce the path lengths ...
However, this is the reason that the clock speed mania is comming to a halt ... and on a chip by chip basis we are moving to more and more paralellism to improve performance.
I have just discovered that Disabling the Windows Services:
Telephony and Remote Access Connection Manager
can make a large performance difference, especially on a slower CPU or one with less memory.
Of course you can only turn these off if they are unneeded. They are required for VOIP, VPN or modem use at least. It is necessary to set the service properties to diabled and then reboot the computer for this change to work.
> I have a computer running
)
> I have a computer running BOINC E@H with 128 MB RAM & WIN98, usually
> without much else running. Whether there is a significant penalty for such a
> small amount of memory is not clear. The CPU is an AthlonXP at 1700 MHz &
> does an E@H work unit in 30500 sec. I tried win2k first & it would not
> run.
This is a little about personal preferences and "feel", but, since Win95 I have been recommending 256M for systems as a minimum, for the Windows NT line, now including all versions of XP should have minimum of 512M.
People do say that they can get by with less, but, it is *MY* belief that performance suffers. WIth memory being as cheap as it has been for quite some time there is not much cause to not get more than "needed".
I usually don't put less than 1G now, in part because of this. When you start to add things like "Keep in Memory", well, the more memory the better.
My posting was /relatively/
)
My posting was /relatively/ off topic, so I moved it to a new thread in the cafe, see:
http://einsteinathome.org/node/188762
apols to Paul D Buck who'd already replied...
~~gravywavy
> Again, real world
)
> Again, real world constraints make real-world machines slower than the
> theoretical limits, but I find it mind boggling that our home computers are
> now fast enough that relativity sets meaningful limits to their performance,
> and within a factor of five of the practical limits.
One of the reasons that the Cray computers at one time were made in a semi-circle ... to reduce the path lengths ...
However, this is the reason that the clock speed mania is comming to a halt ... and on a chip by chip basis we are moving to more and more paralellism to improve performance.
I have just discovered that
)
I have just discovered that Disabling the Windows Services:
Telephony and Remote Access Connection Manager
can make a large performance difference, especially on a slower CPU or one with less memory.
Of course you can only turn these off if they are unneeded. They are required for VOIP, VPN or modem use at least. It is necessary to set the service properties to diabled and then reboot the computer for this change to work.