RAM …
In the days of high RAM prices, computers commonly operated with RAM quantities somewhat below ideal levels. The performance gains realised by increasing RAM were not worth the cost. In this environment, shortages of RAM were the bottlenecks most commonly experienced.
As RAM costs declined, systems with sufficient memory became available at prices within most budgets. With the memory bottleneck expanded, other impediments became major concerns. As recent posters point out, some systems can even contain too much memory. Computers evolve to exploit abundant resources and minimise their dependence on scarce ones. This evolution proceeds much slower than the developments in technology that motivate it. Computer builders appear trapped on hamster wheels of change.
With the targets moving so rapidly, it’s no surprise that some will overshoot. Recent posts on this thread suggest that the ‘sweet spot’ in today’s Windows 98 based systems is 128m RAM. A number of people have confessed to having much, much, more, and their numbers climb as prices fall. Who among us can disregard a bargain? Over time, systems and software demand greater quantities of memory. Reasonable people see this trend, and coupled with wildly fluctuating memory prices hitting new lows, decide that today’s prices represent a chance to upgrade their system at low cost. It’s only a tiny step further to decide to not only upgrade to meet today’s needs, but to meet tomorrow’s needs as well; hence, excess RAM gets installed.
Reading posts on this thread for the last year or two leads me to believe that those with a surfeit of RAM are no longer some small minority of very extravagant or very specialised computer users. On the contrary, they’re people who’ve taken advantage of today’s exceptional prices, and taken the process a little further.
The question they now face is what to do with all that RAM.
As long as memory shortages result in performance bottlenecks, additional memory can be best utilised in the conventional manner: Given to Windows to manage. Within reasonable limits, Windows does a good job of managing memory. Since this is the easiest path, (Do nothing) I’d recommend following it for systems running Windows 98 with 128m RAM, or less. Upgrades from 32m or 64m to 128m should reduce Swap File usage and deliver noticeable improvement.
Since today’s Windows 98 systems seem to derive very little benefit from upgrading beyond 128m, how should we exploit the extra RAM on these systems? I’d suggest using RAM to address some other system bottlenecks. A prime candidate for this is the disk. I’ll suggest some methods for replacing the very slow storage of data on disk with the incredibly fast storage of this same data in memory.
First, with excess RAM, Windows’ Swap File shouldn’t be needed, or if needed, needed very little. However, Windows doesn’t do a very good job of recognising abundant RAM, and continues to utilise the Swap File anyway. Unnecessary use of the Swap File profoundly hinders system speed. To eliminate this oversight by Windows, insert the following line in SYSTEM.INI below the [386Enh] sub-heading.
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1
This will inform Windows that you only want the Swap File used when needed; otherwise, Windows will use your abundant RAM.
Proceeding onward, and in the same SYSTEM.INI, insert the following line below the [vcache] sub-heading.
MinFileCache=8192
If a value for MaxFileCache is given, delete it. Windows will force memory recovery from this cache as needed. Omitting this line will allow cache sizes to approach full system memory. Windows reduces the memory allocated to this cache automatically once such a large cache is no longer needed. Sharp readers will notice that I’m placing a bit of a bet here. I’m taking the chance that Windows will not need huge amounts of RAM for programs at the same time it needs a giant cache. If this case appears, and on my system it never has, Windows will reduce the disk cache and allocate memory to programs. The reduced cache I’m left with will be similar to what I’d have if I hadn’t inserted the MinFileCache line, so I haven’t sacrificed anything, but at all other times, I enjoy the benefits of an substantial cache.
Finally, Windows stores considerable data in temporary files on the disk. Every access consumes time. On my system, these temporary files are stored in a RAM disk. The RAM disk supplied with Windows has some shortcomings – the main one is the limited sized disks supported. I downloaded XMSDSK, a RAM disk limited in size only by available RAM. I’ve had no trouble with this program, and feel confident endorsing it.
The main challenge with storing temporary files in a RAM disk is the difficulty of getting the system set up to do this. I posted detailed instruction for this some time ago on this thread. Basically, what’s required is XMSDSK must be installed, AUTOEXEC.BAT edited so it creates the required folders, and some registry alterations instructing Windows to use the RAM disk instead of the hard drive. I use my RAM disk to store cookies too. This cleans them out at every shutdown.
Of course, the quantity of RAM you can spare will determine how much you allocate to alternate uses. On my system, 128m of my 384m is devoted to Windows 98, leaving me with a 256m RAM disk. I’ve found this allocation works well for me, neither slowing Windows or resulting in any shortages of temporary file storage.
I’ve discussed each of these ideas separately in earlier posts. I’ve re-introduced them together here because I wanted to reply to recent posts addressing the connection between RAM upgrading and system performance improvements.
Cheers, PW. |
