More memory = faster encoding?

[DJ Bobo]

I have Win98se and 128MB. If I upgrade to 256MB, will I get more speed in DivX encoding?

[Hanty]

Yes, but hardly noticable. It do you more good "speed" wise to upgrade to 2k.

[Acaila]

As far as I know Win98 isn't made to handle more than 128MB, so putting in more isn't going to help you one bit. I believe faster memory helps more to speed up encoding than just more memory.

[Hiro2k]

More Memory won't help you unless you upgrade to DDR Ram or if you use the PC100, to upgrade to PC133. It's mostly dependant on your processor speed, but the faster it can acces your RAM the faster your encoding speed. Getting 2k or Xp wouldn't help much speed wise, but there would be more stability and it would handle your memory mangement better. Win98 can handle 256, but 2k/Xp does a better job of clearing your RAM once your done using an Ap. 98 is sloppy and won't clear it once it's done using it, and thats why you have to reboot so often. :D

[Latexxx]

It depends morely in processor, but it gives you speed if it isn't after that using virtual(hd) memory all the time.

[theReal]

Upgrade to 512MB (maybe 384MB is enough already) and you can switch off virtual memory completely. That gives you a nice speed boost in Win98 SE (but not for encoding, only makes the OS more responsive)

[Captain_Nipple]

Win98 can't handle more then 512mb of memory.
This is a known issue.
ht*p://www.aumha.org/a/memmgmtz.htm

if u do have Win98/WinMe and 512mb of memory, go to start/run and type "msconfig".
Then Advanced and limit your memory to 511mb.
This, I believe would solve problems.

When I had 768mb of ram, all the icon in windows were cdrom icons.
Even in safe mode. Removing the extra ram and all was fine.
Using WinXP Pro now :)

Note:-
I think memory speed is more important them amount.

[theReal]

I think memory speed is more important them amount.

You're right - there's hardly any application that will use 512MB or more, even in Win2k or XP. I think 384MB would be enough for 99% of applications. But you can always make a RAMdisk if you find you have more memory than is necessary :)

[benedict]

Memory Questions

My Win98/SE (600 MHz) came with 128 Megs (PC100) and I added 256 Megs to it. Since that upgrade, I seem to be running a massive SWP file (445 Megs right now - I've seen it at over 1.5 Gigs!). I found this out because I wanted to set my SWP to a fixed size, but after seeing this, I'm kind of afraid to tamper with it. [Note: msconfig is set to 319 Megs] Anyone have any ideas on this?

Also, I just got a Win/Me (1.1 GHz) and it came with 128 Megs, also PC100! I wanted to throw a 256 Meg stick at that too, but from what you folks seem to be saying, I'd probably do better to take that 128 Meg PC100 stick out (and probably drop it in my first machine) and replace it with a 256 Meg PC133 stick. Comments on this? [NOTE: My plan is to use the new box as my video editor.]

:confused:

[theReal]

I don't know what exactly Win98 is swapping there, but that's exactly the reason you would want to disable the swap file. I've been running Win98 with 384MB and swapfile disabled for quite a while, later I upgraded to 512MB and did the same. Try it - you'll see it's much better!

Unfortunately, you can't disable the swapfile in Win2k: I have 512MB of memory, but I've never managed to fill up more than 320MB of it (mostly it uses between 150 and 220MB). Nevertheless, the swapfile-usage is always between 130 and 180MB. I've already disabled the paging executive in the registry, but still the swapfile usage (the actual usage, not the file) is that high.

[benedict]

That makes sense. Win2000 is intended as a LAN server and shutting off SWP would probably trash it.

As to Win98, I have no damned idea what it's putting out there either, but I'm often fond of running lots of programs simultaneously, including a lot of open browser windows. The thing is: even when I find my swap going insane and shut down all sorts of windows, the swap still sits there at the same size. After a while, it'll come down, but I can't figure out what events make it do so.

Anyways, let me ask you a few questions about your pre-"swap disabled" days. I've probably got 200 or more installs on this box and always monitor them with a program designed for full back-out. Very few installs have required that, and when it was necessary, it worked like a champ. That Win98 re-boot problem that everyone bitches about? For 2 years, I could [B]pound(!) on this box for two weeks and then just re-boot to "clean things up".

Of late, I have developed something I call "Explorer Crawl". Doesn't happen all the time, but when it does I notice it in 3 ways:

1) Emptying my Recycle Bin: Normally, about 200+ files per second. Explorer Crawl? 15-20 per second.

2) Windows Explorer: When Explorer Crawl is there, 15-20 seconds just just to change directories, even if I am only moving one level up or down.

3) Temporary Internet Files: I dump these often. With Explorer Crawl? I can have 80%+ user and system resources when I start. Suddenly I'm at 68%, and a few seconds later I'm at 1% on both. I don't crash, mind you, but even when it finishes, it gives me back 10-12% of that every 3-4 seconds.

A long explanation, but do you recognize anything like this from before you dumped your swap file? And do you use anything like RAM-Idle (a memory recovery program)?

:) Thanks for getting back on this too. The whole thing has been p#ssing me off of late, and none of my local gurus have a clue.

[theReal]

I've had this "Explorer crawl" before and after disabling the swap file. It only happened on the deletion of a big amount of files and suddenly blocked my Explorer windows for up to 30-40 seconds.

I noticed something else (similar): Some programs, especially p2p programs were able to fill up gradually the memory until the system became very, very slow. With the swapfile enabled, I could still use the system further, but it didn't make any sense because the only memory left was swap memory, so I had to reboot. With the swapfile disabled, it would at that point just show a "not enough memory message" and refuse to open program windows.

Especially against this symptom, even tools like FreeRAM didn't help. The memory seemed to be taken over by the system and FreeRAM couldn't clear that part of memory, it seemed.

[benedict]

Very curious indeed. Before AND after. I too thought it was only happening when there was a huge nuber of files, but have have seen it happen with only 200 or so files in my Recycle. Up pops the box; 15-30 seconds remaining (for 200 + files). It's like Windows suddenly doesn't even know where it is. I've checked my "disk access" LED during this time, and Windows is simply running around aimlessly in my RAM. I have an operating system that doesn't understand where the f#ck it is.

Worse yet, if this problem is not annoying me a lot, I'll let the system go without a re-boot until I finish what I'm doing. Surprize, surprize! Sometimes before I finish, Explorer Crawl has gone away!

I mean, either this asshole OS is broken, or it isn't. And even it can't figure out the answer to that question.

[phamilton]

A couple of points:

1. Win2K amd WinXP are generally faster that other Win** systems (e.g. Win98), because they operate in 32-bit mode rather than a mix of 32-bit and 16-bit as in the earlier versions. This leads to other benefits such as greater stability etc. XP makes more effective use of memory than 2K.

2. All Win versions will go for a swap file that is big enough to do a full memory dump when there is a crash, if you let them. If you have plenty of RAM it is ok to reduce the size of the swap file (including 2K and XP). However it is best to leave a small swapfile (a few MB at least) rather than have no swap file at all. Windows likes to have a swapfile in which to put key info about a crash even if there is no room for a full memory dump - just in case the system is used by a guru who can usefully interpret the key info.

[tiki4]

As you are discussing swapfile usage here:

Windows 98 and later has a different memory management than Windows 95. If you still remember that OS the swapfile was 0 as long as there was no need to swap out something (just like Linux does for example). Win98 starts swapping out some things from boot time. As far as I know this is mainly intended to cache .dll files that could be used later on. However, you can force the old style swapfile usage of Windows 95 in Win98 and Win98SE. Look in your system.ini (located in C:\Windows or wherever you installed). There you find a section containing the settings of the swapfile. Just add the line 'ConservativePagefileUsage=1' and reboot and have a look for 'win386.swp'. This should be 0 bytes now (if you have enough memory installed).

Unfortunately this doesn't work any longer in Windows ME, at least it didn't work for me.

tiki4

[benedict]

tiki4: The only thing I'm finding in system.ini that seems to fit the bill is a tag called "[vcache]", which currently has nothing under it. Is this the place you are referring to?

[theReal]

[vcache] is for the HD-cache. You can limit memory usage of the HD cache, which is a good idea if you have 128MB or less RAM - or if you have more than 512MB (for using more than 512MB in Win98/ME, you actually MUST limit the vcache)

Example:

[vcache]
MinFileCache=4096
MaxFileCache=32768

[Arky]

I am currently running 1Gb of DDRAM, and my swapfile is just over 1.5Gb - any recommendations for tweaking this, or should i just leave it alone? I'm not worried about the wasted 1.5Gb of HDD space, since I am fortunate to have plenty spare anyway. I know WHERE to tweak this, I'm just curious as to whether or not I SHOULD, and if so, in what manner. I am on Win2k SP-0

Thanks for any advice.


Arky ;o)

[tiki4]

@benedict:

Sorry, didn't check this thread lately. Just try the following. You know where to tweak the settings of your swapfile? (Right click on Workplace (what's the English name?) and choose properties...). Now limit the swapfile to some minimum and maximum values of your own. Reboot. Now check again your system.ini, then you should be able to find the right place to tweak.

Sorry, I can't be more precise right now, as I don't have any Win9x around any more. But after changing the swapfile options manually there will be settings in the system.ini that match what you chose in Windows. And no, it is not [vache].

tiki4

[benedict]

OK, I got it. Swapfile is under a tag called "[386Enh]" (Win98SE, at least). Apparently, nothing appears there so long as you let Windows manage the thing. (We call "workplace" "My Computer", by the way.) I threw a Gig at it just to find out where it would show up, and there it was: "MaxPagingFileSize=1024000".

Thanks for your help.:stupid:

[tiki4]

'Course [386Enh]... Good old Win 3.1 days. I must admit I'm out of the 9x business for a while now. Sometimes I keep WinME running for playing some games, but the rest is 2K.

'My Computer', hihi, it's called 'Arbeitsplatz' over here. I always hated that 'My thing' thing. In German version everything starts with 'Eigene', so that would be 'self-files' or something like this translated back to English. Damned Microsoft.

tiki4

[theReal]

Arky, I don't think you have to do anything about the swapfile. I guess it is better to set min and max size to the same size (this was good for performance in Win98, I guess it's also good in Win2K).
I set mine to 768-768MB with 512MB of RAM. I don't think it will ever use that much, but it's certainly not bad...

[Arky]

ok, cheers anyway.


Arky ;o)

[benedict]

Arbeitsplatz?

I like that! Maybe I'll change mine to that name. I don't want anyone thinking that "My Computer" means that I approve of the way this stupid box has been acting up lately.

[Fantasma]

In regard to the original memory speed question, I must say I haven't
notice a great difference comparing sdram and ddram.

I have a pentium 4 at 1.7 Gigas, formerly I was using a SOYO motherboard with 256 megabytes of sdram pc133, and now a XP930 motherboard with 256 megas ddram and no noticeable speed increase.

I did notice a speed boost after replacing my Pentium III at 800 Mhz
for this pentium 4 at 1.7 though :)

[Ookami]

As I didn't read all of the postings this has been maybe said already, if so, I apologize...

You should be carefull with disableing the swap file and/or setting it to fixed. That means you should first test it a while before working on important things!

I've noticed that some apllications (audio editors for instance) need huge amount of RAM and a biiiig swap file! Even my 256 RAM and 512 MB SWAP file was NOT enough!

Also, when a friend was writing his Diplomarbeit/diplomski (don't know the english word) on my PC (many mathematic formulas), he used copy and paste and after an hour of writing Word just said "not enough memory" and you couldn't even save the file :eek. Again the same specs...

After that I set the minimum size to 256 (I think) and no max...

But I must say that I've worked for a few years with fixed SWAP file size without probs...

So it really depends on your programs you use and what you do.

BTW, I am only talking about Win98 and Win98SE, with Win2K I've never changed such stuff.

Cheers,

Mijo.

[benedict]

I assume when you refer to audio editing, you mean editing in WAV format? I can't see where other formats would require that much (unless of course the editor in question was specifically programmed to disregard memory considerations.)

By the way, your "Diplomarbeit/diplomski" sounds like what we refer to as the much-dreaded "thesis".

[theReal]

Well, if you're working with big, uncompressed pictures and programs like Photoshop, Acrobat, Pagemill (and so on), you can even fill up a Gig of RAM in no time. Then, disabling the swap file in Win98 is not a good idea. But, from my own experience I can say with 512MB of real RAM, disabling the swapfile in Win98SE is safe for 98-99% of all tasks.

[Arky]

If you do a couple of mix-pastes on .wavs with CoolEdit, you can easily fill up 1gig of DDRAM, but I can't be bothered to buy even more, so I'll just have to put up with it - it does at least allow me to save the result, it just has to abandon the "undo" function in order to proceed with the job in hand.

Since their is apparently no great benefit to altering it, I think I will just leave the Swap file under the automatic control of Win2k - "if it ain't broken, don't 'fix' it!"


Arky ;o)

[benedict]

So here's what happened:

As I mentioned earlier, I told Win98SE to limit my swap to a Gig just to find out where the entry in SYSTEM.INI should be placed. Upon re-boot however, a couple of app's tanked on me. I had only been over a Gig on my .SWP file a couple of times that I had noticed and I wasn't doing anything much to get to that, so I check my .SWP file. Or should I say that I checked for my .SWP, because it wasn't there. Zero. Nada.

In fact, I've now monitored this for a week. I haven't had any more app's tubing themselves since then, but I've also not had any swap file since then either.

Does anyone have an idea about what is going on here?

[diji1]

that sure is a wierd problem there benedict ... windows never ceases it's "surprises" though, lol.

anyway, reading this thread reminded me of this "tweak" -> h**p://www.techspot.com/tweaks/memory-winxp/xpmem-4.shtml - basically you can use builtin winxp logging to monitor ur page file usage and thus get an idea of a sane size to set it too. worked for me. i have no idea if this can be done on win2000, sorry. as for 98, like others, i find turning off paging makes the OS / games ultraresponsive. of course, i never use 98 for anything but games ...

[theReal]

Taskinfo2000 and ABPMon ( http://www.iarsn.com/index.html#/download.html ) can monitor the actual swapfile usage, no need to tweak anything. I think it works for every version of Windows.

[tiki4]

@benedict:

When you change the swapfile usage of Windows 98 and limit it to a given size it actually shifts this swapfile from C:\Windows to C:\.

I don't know why Windows is doing this, but change Explorer so that you can view all files (so even system + hidden files). Then do a search for win386.swp. I guess it is in C:\

Regards,

tiki4

[shadowrunner]

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

[benedict]

@tiki4

Bingo! There it is: 212K! I, of course, was only monitoring C:\WINDOWS for it. But now that you've pointed that out, there was another entry added to my SYSTEM.INI that I hadn't noticed before that specifies exactly that repositioning.

Now if you could just explain to me why Windows does that, then we'd really be making progress. But I think I already know the answer to that: Because it damn well feels like it!

@theReal

Goodness! Not more system monitors! I already have more than I can count, and most of them I can't read for beans. They never seem to want to measure exactly what I'm looking for. One of them, for example, has 5 or six different gauges for the swap file alone, and not a one of them ever matches what I get from a simple "Find" command on that file.