SPONSORED LINKS
My two cents:
My brother-in-law just bought a 32 MB SO-DIMM from the Chip Merchant.
Kudos to them: about 6 weeks ago, he asked them for the 32 MB
SO-DIMM. At that time, they said they didn't carry it. So, he
settled for the 16 MB. But, their Web page does show a part number
for the 32 MB SO-DIMM at $355. When he pointed it out to them, about
2 weeks ago, they gave him a credit for the 16 MB and sent him
the 32 SO-DIMM without waiting for him to return the 16 SO-DIMM.
They did nick him $15 for a restocking fee.
However, the performance of the 701 with Win95 seems to improve
markably when running the same apps with 16 (+8) vs. 32 (+8).
We've run two 701s side by side. There is minimal to no disk
caching with the 32 MB upgrade.
The situation where too much RAM memory slows down a system can
occur with the definition of the size of the disk cache. To me,
the classical example of this is with OS/2. OS/2 by default will
allocate a disk cache that is typically 2x the RAM size. This is
great for OS/2 boxes with something like 16-24 MB of RAM. In the
good old days of expensive RAM, this made sense. When RAM prices
crashed last year, and I splurged on RAM for my OS/2 box and pushed
the RAM to 64 (an excessively silly amount), the performance noticably
degraded. Why? Because the disk cache grew to 128 MB. Once I forced
the disk cache back down to 32 MB, performance went back up. Win95
does something similar. But I don't understand lots of things
with Win95.
Hope this helps...
Mitchell
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: 16 v 32 on TP (was: Third Party Memory for the TP701)
Author: ross@math.hawaii.edu (David Ross) at Internet
Date: 3/19/97 10:10 AM
Randy Whittle writes:
> difference. I posted sometime back that according to Norton Utilities, my
> base Win 95 setup (with the little extras loaded, like Norton Navigator
> utils) uses up something like 30 MB RAM just by booting up and sitting
> there without any additional software loaded. The Win 95 kernel alone
> (without *any* fancy stuff--i.e., networking capability) takes up 12 MB RAM.
What is NU really reporting here? I've run Win95 w/only 8 megs, and
while it is sometimes horribly slow, at other times it runs fine w/no
HD access visible. A fair fraction of this kernel must therefore be
fairly irrelevant, and Windows must be smart enough to page it to disk
and keep it there. (Good grief, I've just used 'Windows' and 'smart'
in a sentence not containing the word 'not'!)
The reason I raised the question is that the price difference between
a 16 meg dimm and a 32 meg dimm is very substantial, and to me
wouldn't be worthwhile unless software actually ran faster at times
other than when it was being loaded. (Common 'wisdom' on
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips is that too much memory can actually slow
a system down! I don't know whether to believe it.)
- David
Received: from mail2c.pilot.net (198.232.147.16) by ima.jud.ca.gov with SMTP
(IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id 000013A0; Wed, 19 Mar 97 12:10:31
-0800
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by mail2c.pilot.net with
SMTP id MAA09214 for <Mitchell_Yee@jud.ca.gov>; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 12:13:46 -0800
(PST)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
id PAA21431; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 15:12:49 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Wed, 19 Mar 1997 15:09:29 -0500
Received:
by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
id PAA20914; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 15:09:27 -0500
Received: from kahuna.math.hawaii.edu (math.hawaii.edu [128.171.50.21])
by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
id PAA20900; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 15:09:21 -0500
Received: from tarski.hawaii.edu (tarski.math.hawaii.edu) by
kahuna.math.hawaii.edu (4.1/kahuna-MX-1.4b)
id AA22307; Wed, 19 Mar 97 10:09:17 HST
Received: by tarski.hawaii.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id KAA27816; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 10:10:06 -1000
From: ross@math.hawaii.edu (David Ross)
Message-Id: <199703192010.KAA27816@tarski.hawaii.edu>
Subject: 16 v 32 on TP (was: Third Party Memory for the TP701)
To: rwhittle@usa.net (Randy Whittle)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 97 10:10:03 HST
Cc: ross@math.hawaii.edu, thinkpad@cs.utk.edu
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970319114019.006e6b44@scf.usc.edu>; from "Randy Whittle"
at Mar 19, 97 11:42 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Comment: to {un}subscribe, send mail to thinkpad-REQUEST@cs.utk.edu