Getting the most from some junk for a good cause.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Hi,

A charity that I help has been given two boxes:

The first is a nice full tower case containing a PL6X-ATX
mobo with 128MBytes memory and a pentium ii 233 MHz Slot 1
processor,80522px233512.

The second is a very non-standard box and small integrated
mobo with no expansion slots with 128 Mbytes memory and a
Celeron 433MHz FV524rx433

Neither has a hard disk.

They want to use them as general purpose office machines.

Any thoughts on which operating systems to use? I assume XP
is a non starter - so its presumably going to be 98SE.

Is there anything I can do to the first one to maximise
performance, or should I just keep the case and start again?

Any thoughts on the comparative performance of the two
processors? I have been trying to find a table of processors
and their benchmarks, without much luck.

Many thanks,

SB
20 answers Last reply
More about getting junk good cause
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Palindr?me wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > A charity that I help has been given two boxes:
    >
    > The first is a nice full tower case containing a PL6X-ATX mobo with
    > 128MBytes memory and a pentium ii 233 MHz Slot 1 processor,80522px233512.

    If you're lucky you might be able to overclock the P-II 233 to 300 by
    simply changing the multiplier. Worked on the one I have.

    >
    > The second is a very non-standard box and small integrated mobo with no
    > expansion slots with 128 Mbytes memory and a Celeron 433MHz FV524rx433
    >
    > Neither has a hard disk.
    >
    > They want to use them as general purpose office machines.
    >
    > Any thoughts on which operating systems to use? I assume XP is a non
    > starter - so its presumably going to be 98SE.

    Well, XP would install on them but it needs more power and resources so
    Win98SE would be better, IMO.


    > Is there anything I can do to the first one to maximise performance, or
    > should I just keep the case and start again?

    As I mentioned, overclock it.

    >
    > Any thoughts on the comparative performance of the two processors? I
    > have been trying to find a table of processors and their benchmarks,
    > without much luck.

    Depends a lot on the motherboard. The Celeron CPU is faster but if it's on
    an el-cheapo integrated motherboard then you'll loose a lot to handling the
    on-board video (I.E. if it's shared memory it robs memory cycles from the CPU).

    >
    > Many thanks,
    >
    > SB
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    > Any thoughts on which operating systems to use? I assume XP
    > is a non starter - so its presumably going to be 98SE.

    I'd actually choose Win2000 if you're going the MS route. Much more
    stable than 98, better memory management, and not as bloated as XP.

    > Any thoughts on the comparative performance of the two
    > processors? I have been trying to find a table of processors
    > and their benchmarks, without much luck.

    Neither of them are going to be speed demons in CPU-intensive tasks, but
    will work perfectly fine for running a word processer, email, or a browser.
    With only 128MB of memory, you might not be able to run all of them at once,
    but the machines will still be better than no machines at all!

    steve
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Palindrâ~»me" <sb382638@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
    news:2ko589F4lefoU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > Hi,
    >
    > A charity that I help has been given two boxes:
    >
    > The first is a nice full tower case containing a PL6X-ATX
    > mobo with 128MBytes memory and a pentium ii 233 MHz Slot 1
    > processor,80522px233512.
    >
    > The second is a very non-standard box and small integrated
    > mobo with no expansion slots with 128 Mbytes memory and a
    > Celeron 433MHz FV524rx433

    > Any thoughts on which operating systems to use? I assume XP
    > is a non starter - so its presumably going to be 98SE.
    >
    > Is there anything I can do to the first one to maximise
    > performance, or should I just keep the case and start again?

    Don't bother with the "SE" verision of 98. Try Windows 98a or b. Smaller
    footprint and less resource requirements.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    > > Don't bother with the "SE" verision of 98. Try Windows 98a or b.
    > > Smaller footprint and less resource requirements.
    >
    > SE is much more stable however. The best of the pre-NTFS OS's.

    Not to mention that USB support didn't really get acceptable until SE.

    steve
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Palindr?me" <sb382638@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
    news:2ko589F4lefoU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > Hi,
    >
    > A charity that I help has been given two boxes:
    >
    > The first is a nice full tower case containing a PL6X-ATX mobo with
    > 128MBytes memory and a pentium ii 233 MHz Slot 1 processor,80522px233512.
    >
    > The second is a very non-standard box and small integrated mobo with no
    > expansion slots with 128 Mbytes memory and a Celeron 433MHz FV524rx433

    If it's for office use, then Windows NT4 would probably be your best bet for
    such machines.

    JW
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Steve Wolfe wrote:

    >>Any thoughts on which operating systems to use? I assume XP
    >>is a non starter - so its presumably going to be 98SE.
    >
    >
    > I'd actually choose Win2000 if you're going the MS route. Much more
    > stable than 98, better memory management, and not as bloated as XP.

    People love to say that but I've done fresh comparison installs of Win2K
    and XP and the initial installs used the exact same amount of RAM, give or
    take a meg. Both were about 96 Meg.


    >>Any thoughts on the comparative performance of the two
    >>processors? I have been trying to find a table of processors
    >>and their benchmarks, without much luck.
    >
    >
    > Neither of them are going to be speed demons in CPU-intensive tasks, but
    > will work perfectly fine for running a word processer, email, or a browser.
    > With only 128MB of memory, you might not be able to run all of them at once,
    > but the machines will still be better than no machines at all!

    Except 128 Meg of RAM is quite nice on Win98SE.

    >
    > steve
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    ......Horses, carts, faces and arses!

    "They want to use them as general purpose office machines". ... and the
    software they intend to use...? Was it donated/already residing on the
    machines? Or is Bill Gates going to "donate" it .... :o)

    Just how clean and squeaky, do these people want/need to be. I'd be the last
    one to recommend Linux to a bunch of novices - but it is free and LEGAL.

    If there're only going to be using Office 97 and some browsing - 98SE (its
    the only on they still support - I think). If you are going to set these
    machines up for someone else to fu.. (ahem) use on a daily basis - perhaps
    you might be a conservative in your choices on their behalf - unless your
    own willingness to help is limitless - in which case buy them new machines -
    and get your spare time back!

    Pete

    "Palindrâ~»me" <sb382638@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
    news:2ko589F4lefoU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > Hi,

    <snip>

    > They want to use them as general purpose office machines.
    >
    > Any thoughts on which operating systems to use? I assume XP
    > is a non starter - so its presumably going to be 98SE.
    >
    > Is there anything I can do to the first one to maximise
    > performance, or should I just keep the case and start again?
    >
    > Any thoughts on the comparative performance of the two
    > processors? I have been trying to find a table of processors
    > and their benchmarks, without much luck.
    >
    > Many thanks,
    >
    > SB
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Many thanks to David, Nozzer, misfit, steve,dublevay, immuno
    and anyone I have missed (it wasn't intentional) for all
    your very helpful and useful suggestions!

    There are some M$oft licence stickers on them which are,
    IIRC, 98SE so I am going to use that.

    Are those stickers the licences and hence, as they are fixed
    to the machines, can I assume that they are tied to the
    machines and I am free to use them on those machines?

    I will try adjusting the multiplier on the Pentium ii but I
    doubt it will be economic to add a faster processor, unless
    I can get something really cheap. Is there such a thing as a
    convertor that will allow me to put a Celeron processor in a
    Pentium ii Slot 1 mobo? I do have a spare 433 Celeron.

    I did think long and hard about going to Linux but any
    suggestions about what to try? My Linux experience is the
    square root of not a lot but I really would rather not keep
    paying Bill as a way of life.

    I did consider Win2000 and XP as I can pick up licences
    for them on Ebay and these licences would, presumably, out
    last these machines and would transfer to whatever
    replacement machines I can scrounge or we get donated. But I
    think 98SE would run significantly faster.

    A lot of places are scrapping machines at the moment - they
    are getting scared by some European Directive on Recycling
    and are changing now before they get a 100GBP surcharge on
    new machines to pay for recycling.

    Again, many thanks for your help.

    Just to give you a laugh - the boss there already has
    insisted that he gets the Pentium ii box to replace his (a
    much faster Athlon). He fancies the look of the very swish
    box and is convinced that it is going to be faster than his
    standard low profile desktop machine. He couldn't possibly
    have anyone having what looks like a better machine. It
    won't matter much, he gets his secretary to print his emails
    and hand writes replies for her to type in and send.. I will
    give her the Athlon..


    Sue
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Palindr?me <sb382638@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<2kq0foF51lclU1@uni-berlin.de>...

    > I will try adjusting the multiplier on the Pentium ii but I
    > doubt it will be economic to add a faster processor, unless
    > I can get something really cheap. Is there such a thing as a
    > convertor that will allow me to put a Celeron processor in a
    > Pentium ii Slot 1 mobo? I do have a spare 433 Celeron.

    Clocking pentiums is often easy, sometimes requires nothing more than
    flipping a little switch. Go bit by bit, and the golden rule is test
    integrity properly after clocking. Theres nothing worse than a clocked
    machine that makes the occasional data error and screws up time after
    time. Sisoft sandra I think is a freebie that will test for data
    errors on Win98.


    > I did think long and hard about going to Linux but any
    > suggestions about what to try? My Linux experience is the
    > square root of not a lot but I really would rather not keep
    > paying Bill as a way of life.

    Linux totally inappropriate


    > Just to give you a laugh - the boss there already has
    > insisted that he gets the Pentium ii box to replace his (a
    > much faster Athlon). He fancies the look of the very swish
    > box and is convinced that it is going to be faster than his
    > standard low profile desktop machine. He couldn't possibly
    > have anyone having what looks like a better machine. It
    > won't matter much, he gets his secretary to print his emails
    > and hand writes replies for her to type in and send.. I will
    > give her the Athlon..

    FWIW either is fine for the job, and of course either will run all
    those apps at once effortlessly. P233 may not be speedy but is it
    certainly perfectly capable, especially with 128M.


    Regards, NT
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Palindr?me wrote:
    > Many thanks to David, Nozzer, misfit, steve,dublevay, immuno and anyone
    > I have missed (it wasn't intentional) for all your very helpful and
    > useful suggestions!
    >
    > There are some M$oft licence stickers on them which are, IIRC, 98SE so I
    > am going to use that.
    >
    > Are those stickers the licences and hence, as they are fixed to the
    > machines, can I assume that they are tied to the machines and I am free
    > to use them on those machines?

    There's more than one type of license and I'm not sure of the details of
    each but, in general, a typical license is for 'a single machine' but not
    tied TO the machine. I.E. If one upgraded they can move the software to the
    new machine but not use it on both, without buying another license.

    The issue would be in transferring a license from one person to another but
    if you have the license sticker, AND the associated CD key to that specific
    license, then I'd think you have sufficient proof of a license.

    > I will try adjusting the multiplier on the Pentium ii but I doubt it
    > will be economic to add a faster processor, unless I can get something
    > really cheap. Is there such a thing as a convertor that will allow me to
    > put a Celeron processor in a Pentium ii Slot 1 mobo? I do have a spare
    > 433 Celeron.

    Yes, a slotket, and celeron, should work in that mobo (which can't be said
    for Intel mobos) and, if you're lucky, you could probably put up to a
    766MHz celeron in it (I am assuming it's limited to 66MHz FSB). Which isn't
    as bad as you may think because a 766 can be had for 24 bucks off pricewatch.


    > I did think long and hard about going to Linux but any suggestions about
    > what to try? My Linux experience is the square root of not a lot but I
    > really would rather not keep paying Bill as a way of life.

    If it's going into an 'office' that's acclimated to Windows then Linux
    would be inappropriate as they'd spend more time trying to figure it out
    than getting anything done, not to mention that the latest, 'modern',
    popular Linux distros are just as resource intensive, if not more so, than
    Windows XP.

    Having said that, the generic version are free so you could download one
    and see for yourself and, in that vein, I'd suggest Knoppix as it has
    excellent hardware detection (not a sterling 'feature' of all
    distributions) and isn't loaded up with 3 CDs worth of apps you'll have no
    idea what to do with (although it has plenty in and of itself). You can get
    the whole thing in one CD which has the amusing feature of being able to
    run from the CD alone so you can try it without wiping out what you already
    have installed. It includes the rather common, and popular, KDE desktop
    (similar to windows) including KDE Office and Open Office, so it would have
    the common office applications included (again, for 'free').

    http://www.knoppix.org/

    It CAN be installed to the hard drive as well.

    http://www.freenet.org.nz/misc/knoppix-install.html

    There are LOTs of Linux distributions, each with their own idea of what
    'features' are nice to have. You can find a listing here:

    http://www.linux.org/dist/index.html

    Search by the 'type' of system you think you'd like, as in
    "Mainstream/general public" or "minimalist", etc..

    Versions the 'general public' see most often, as in Best Buy stores, are
    Redhat and Mandrake. There are also 'generic' versions of those which are
    'free' and downloadable.

    Debian is an excellent distribution and is what Knoppix is based on. Some,
    like Debian, maintain an online software repository that you can download
    apps from and know they will work (as they are revision and requisite
    controlled).

    Some distributions are NOT 'free', most notably Lindows (notable as it
    tries to 'look like' Windows, run Windows software, and they've been
    pushing the O.S. in retail outlets so people may have seen it).

    You can also buy 'generic' Linux distributions from cheapbytes.com for a
    song and a dance, which translates to the 3 to 10 buck range (plus the ever
    present shipping cost, of course), if you have a modem connection and don't
    want to spend days downloading one.

    As a side note, there are some interesting super small distros, such as
    Feather Linux and Damn Small Linux, that fit in under 60 Meg of CD space
    (damn small will fit on a business card CD) and might be fun to look at
    since the download is a tenth of a normal CD, but they don't use the
    'windows looking' style of GUI (I.E. no KDE), for obvious space reasons,
    and instead have a skinnied down GUI (black box variants). Not many apps
    either but you can install to disk and add more (I happen to like Feather
    for old machines and it's hardware detection seems better than the original
    Knoppix it's derived from). They're skinnied down versions of Knoppix,
    which, as I mentioned, is a skinnied down Debain, so they can use the
    Debain install routines. (They are both 'beta' releases and so occasionally
    have things that need a bit of 'manual adjustment' to get exactly right)

    By now you may have guessed one of the advantages as well as a DISadvantage
    to Linux. They do not all work the same way, nor have the same GUI, nor
    install apps the same way, and there are a million 'options'/'flavors',
    which means there's a million questions and a million potential decisions
    to make. It can be daunting to someone who just wants "something that
    works, and is easy."

    > I did consider Win2000 and XP as I can pick up licences for them on
    > Ebay and these licences would, presumably, out last these machines and
    > would transfer to whatever replacement machines I can scrounge or we get
    > donated. But I think 98SE would run significantly faster.

    You could disable extraneous services in Win2K/XP, and turn off the fancy
    bells and whistles, to speed them up but the bigger hit is the memory
    requirements as 128Meg is fine for Win98 but marginal for Win2K/XP


    > A lot of places are scrapping machines at the moment - they are getting
    > scared by some European Directive on Recycling and are changing now
    > before they get a 100GBP surcharge on new machines to pay for recycling.
    >
    > Again, many thanks for your help.
    >
    > Just to give you a laugh - the boss there already has insisted that he
    > gets the Pentium ii box to replace his (a much faster Athlon). He
    > fancies the look of the very swish box and is convinced that it is going
    > to be faster than his standard low profile desktop machine. He couldn't
    > possibly have anyone having what looks like a better machine. It won't
    > matter much, he gets his secretary to print his emails and hand writes
    > replies for her to type in and send.. I will give her the Athlon..

    I'd love to see a picture of this boffo case that has him so buffaloed. Or
    is he just stuck on the 'size matters' illusion?

    >
    >
    > Sue
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    >"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    news:10eh8vaaj7f6nd8@corp.supernews.com...

    (sorry Sue going OT)

    >Having said that, the generic version are free so you could download one
    >and see for yourself and, in that vein, I'd suggest Knoppix as it has
    >excellent hardware detection (not a sterling 'feature' of all
    >distributions) and isn't loaded up with 3 CDs worth of apps you'll have no
    >idea what to do with (although it has plenty in and of itself). You can get
    >the whole thing in one CD which has the amusing feature of being able to
    >run from the CD alone so you can try it without wiping out what you already
    have installed. It includes the rather common, and popular, KDE desktop
    >(similar to windows) including KDE Office and Open Office, so it would have
    >the common office applications included (again, for 'free').
    >
    >http://www.knoppix.org/

    I've not delved into the Linux world too much - preferred to build 'em (for
    me) and use 'em in the ("real") corporate world. That said - it was KNOPPIX
    that lead me in the first time. Really neat trick autodetecting, installing,
    running - AND REALLY WORKING - just from a CD. Therefore no committment - as
    a trial run(s). Have you looked at "Damn Small Linux" <50Meg?

    Pete
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Immuno wrote:

    >>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    >
    > news:10eh8vaaj7f6nd8@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > (sorry Sue going OT)
    >
    >
    >>Having said that, the generic version are free so you could download one
    >>and see for yourself and, in that vein, I'd suggest Knoppix as it has
    >>excellent hardware detection (not a sterling 'feature' of all
    >>distributions) and isn't loaded up with 3 CDs worth of apps you'll have no
    >>idea what to do with (although it has plenty in and of itself). You can get
    >>the whole thing in one CD which has the amusing feature of being able to
    >>run from the CD alone so you can try it without wiping out what you already
    >
    > have installed. It includes the rather common, and popular, KDE desktop
    >
    >>(similar to windows) including KDE Office and Open Office, so it would have
    >>the common office applications included (again, for 'free').
    >>
    >>http://www.knoppix.org/
    >
    >
    > I've not delved into the Linux world too much - preferred to build 'em (for
    > me) and use 'em in the ("real") corporate world. That said - it was KNOPPIX
    > that lead me in the first time. Really neat trick autodetecting, installing,
    > running - AND REALLY WORKING - just from a CD. Therefore no committment - as
    > a trial run(s). Have you looked at "Damn Small Linux" <50Meg?

    Yeah, and I mentioned it along with Feather linux. Both are cute.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    > > I'd actually choose Win2000 if you're going the MS route. Much more
    > > stable than 98, better memory management, and not as bloated as XP.
    >
    > People love to say that but I've done fresh comparison installs of Win2K
    > and XP and the initial installs used the exact same amount of RAM, give or
    > take a meg. Both were about 96 Meg.

    Start using them. I've used nearly identical computers, with 2K and XP.
    2K was definitely more responsive.

    > > Neither of them are going to be speed demons in CPU-intensive tasks, but
    > > will work perfectly fine for running a word processer, email, or a
    browser.
    > > With only 128MB of memory, you might not be able to run all of them at
    once,
    > > but the machines will still be better than no machines at all!
    >
    > Except 128 Meg of RAM is quite nice on Win98SE.

    For the OS, yes. Throw in multiple applications at the same time, it gets
    dicey if you're using modern, bloated applications. It still boggles my
    mind that M$ Word needs such large amounts of memory to do what word
    processers used to do in 640k.

    steve
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Steve Wolfe wrote:

    >>> I'd actually choose Win2000 if you're going the MS route. Much more
    >>>stable than 98, better memory management, and not as bloated as XP.
    >>
    >>People love to say that but I've done fresh comparison installs of Win2K
    >>and XP and the initial installs used the exact same amount of RAM, give or
    >>take a meg. Both were about 96 Meg.
    >
    >
    > Start using them. I've used nearly identical computers, with 2K and XP.
    > 2K was definitely more responsive.

    I use both. And yes, you can slow XP down by loading it up with the bells
    and whistles but you can also turn them off.


    >>>Neither of them are going to be speed demons in CPU-intensive tasks, but
    >>>will work perfectly fine for running a word processer, email, or a
    >
    > browser.
    >
    >>>With only 128MB of memory, you might not be able to run all of them at
    >
    > once,
    >
    >>>but the machines will still be better than no machines at all!
    >>
    >>Except 128 Meg of RAM is quite nice on Win98SE.
    >
    >
    > For the OS, yes.

    Win98SE won't even use up 64 meg. Or rather, it'll make the disk cache
    large enough to appear to use up the spare, but the O.S. doesn't 'need' that.

    > Throw in multiple applications at the same time, it gets
    > dicey if you're using modern, bloated applications. It still boggles my
    > mind that M$ Word needs such large amounts of memory to do what word
    > processers used to do in 640k.

    Yes, well, I just finished putting together a little win98se system on an
    old P-200MMX with 64 meg and with word and I.E. open (NAV in background) it
    ends up with something trivial, like say 2 meg, in swap with a still hefty
    24 meg disk cache.

    Now, that may be 'tight' if one is trying to avoid swap altogether (limit
    the disk cache if you can't bear it) but with 128 meg you're in hog heaven,
    as long as you don't get too piggish about it.

    And by that I mean it isn't a 'power user' office system; just relatively
    mild work use as opposed to some hair-on-fire yahoo editing 3 manuals,
    replete with embedded pictures, charts, and graphs, while working with 3
    excel spreadsheets, photoshop, a powerpoint presentation and updating his
    MS project schedule as he checks meeting times in Outlook to see if he's
    gonna make it.

    >
    > steve
    >
    >
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    > Win98SE won't even use up 64 meg. Or rather, it'll make the disk cache
    > large enough to appear to use up the spare, but the O.S. doesn't 'need'
    that.

    If anything, Win98SE does a horrible job of the disk cache - it creates
    overly large caches, failing to release the memory when needed, and puts
    the machine into swap unnecessarily early. They tried to copy Unix's
    memory management attitude, and got it wrong. I can't count how many
    times people have told me "My machine is running slow, but I should have
    plenty of memory." Upon inspection, the machine was swapping in and out
    so that 98SE could have an overly large disk cache. Limitting the size of
    the cache to something reasonable, in EVERY case, made the machine swap
    less, run more apps, and act more responsively. NT and 2000 are much,
    much more intelligent about how they handle disk cache sizes and swapping.

    > Yes, well, I just finished putting together a little win98se system on
    an
    > old P-200MMX with 64 meg and with word and I.E. open (NAV in background)
    it
    > ends up with something trivial, like say 2 meg, in swap with a still
    hefty
    > 24 meg disk cache.
    >
    > Now, that may be 'tight' if one is trying to avoid swap altogether
    (limit
    > the disk cache if you can't bear it) but with 128 meg you're in hog
    heaven,
    > as long as you don't get too piggish about it.
    >
    > And by that I mean it isn't a 'power user' office system; just
    relatively
    > mild work use as opposed to some hair-on-fire yahoo editing 3 manuals,
    > replete with embedded pictures, charts, and graphs, while working with 3
    > excel spreadsheets, photoshop, a powerpoint presentation and updating
    his
    > MS project schedule as he checks meeting times in Outlook to see if he's
    > gonna make it.

    Some of the Excel files that get passed around our office can make Excel
    alone take up nearly 128 megs. And on truly obscene web pages, I've seen
    IE taking up nearly 64 megs. And I've seen Outlook Express taking up
    100(!) megs at really bad times. Because RAM is cheap, as time goes on,
    software tends to be more and more wasteful of it. What we did relatively
    well in 16 megs years ago now takes a minimum of 64, 128, or sometimes,
    even more.

    steve
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Steve Wolfe wrote:
    >>Win98SE won't even use up 64 meg. Or rather, it'll make the disk cache
    >>large enough to appear to use up the spare, but the O.S. doesn't 'need'
    >
    > that.
    >
    > If anything, Win98SE does a horrible job of the disk cache - it creates
    > overly large caches, failing to release the memory when needed, and puts
    > the machine into swap unnecessarily early. They tried to copy Unix's
    > memory management attitude, and got it wrong. I can't count how many
    > times people have told me "My machine is running slow, but I should have
    > plenty of memory." Upon inspection, the machine was swapping in and out
    > so that 98SE could have an overly large disk cache. Limitting the size of
    > the cache to something reasonable, in EVERY case, made the machine swap
    > less, run more apps, and act more responsively. NT and 2000 are much,
    > much more intelligent about how they handle disk cache sizes and swapping.

    Windows is generally trying to keep most often used in disk (RAM) cache
    with less frequently used in swap but maybe your apps don't fit that model
    for some reason so if limiting cache size works for you then by all means
    do so.

    >>Yes, well, I just finished putting together a little win98se system on
    >
    > an
    >
    >>old P-200MMX with 64 meg and with word and I.E. open (NAV in background)
    >
    > it
    >
    >>ends up with something trivial, like say 2 meg, in swap with a still
    >
    > hefty
    >
    >>24 meg disk cache.
    >>
    >>Now, that may be 'tight' if one is trying to avoid swap altogether
    >
    > (limit
    >
    >>the disk cache if you can't bear it) but with 128 meg you're in hog
    >
    > heaven,
    >
    >>as long as you don't get too piggish about it.
    >>
    >>And by that I mean it isn't a 'power user' office system; just
    >
    > relatively
    >
    >>mild work use as opposed to some hair-on-fire yahoo editing 3 manuals,
    >>replete with embedded pictures, charts, and graphs, while working with 3
    >>excel spreadsheets, photoshop, a powerpoint presentation and updating
    >
    > his
    >
    >>MS project schedule as he checks meeting times in Outlook to see if he's
    >>gonna make it.
    >
    >
    > Some of the Excel files that get passed around our office can make Excel
    > alone take up nearly 128 megs. And on truly obscene web pages, I've seen
    > IE taking up nearly 64 megs. And I've seen Outlook Express taking up
    > 100(!) megs at really bad times. Because RAM is cheap, as time goes on,
    > software tends to be more and more wasteful of it. What we did relatively
    > well in 16 megs years ago now takes a minimum of 64, 128, or sometimes,
    > even more.
    >
    > steve
    >

    I don't think ridiculously sized projects and 'the worst you've seen' make
    for representative benchmarks in this case as I got the impression they
    were looking a this as a 'budget' machine, but they can add RAM later if it
    turns out the user is a hair-on-fire 'worst case' scenario, although SDR
    SDRAM isn't so 'cheap' anymore.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    > Windows is generally trying to keep most often used in disk (RAM) cache
    > with less frequently used in swap but maybe your apps don't fit that model
    > for some reason so if limiting cache size works for you then by all means
    > do so.

    I know that 98 *tries* to do it, but just like Toonces the cat, it's "just
    not very well". NT/2K/XP are far better at it. Even with 512 megs of
    memory, I've seen 98 swapping to/from disk long before it needed to.

    > I don't think ridiculously sized projects and 'the worst you've seen' make
    > for representative benchmarks in this case as I got the impression they
    > were looking a this as a 'budget' machine, but they can add RAM later if
    it
    > turns out the user is a hair-on-fire 'worst case' scenario, although SDR
    > SDRAM isn't so 'cheap' anymore.

    "Worst-case"? That wasn't anywhere *near* the worst-case. In fact,
    that's pretty much average for what I've seen in anything other than a small
    mom-and-pop shop. : )

    steve
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Steve Wolfe wrote:
    >>Windows is generally trying to keep most often used in disk (RAM) cache
    >>with less frequently used in swap but maybe your apps don't fit that model
    >>for some reason so if limiting cache size works for you then by all means
    >>do so.
    >
    >
    > I know that 98 *tries* to do it, but just like Toonces the cat, it's "just
    > not very well". NT/2K/XP are far better at it. Even with 512 megs of
    > memory, I've seen 98 swapping to/from disk long before it needed to.
    >
    >
    >>I don't think ridiculously sized projects and 'the worst you've seen' make
    >>for representative benchmarks in this case as I got the impression they
    >>were looking a this as a 'budget' machine, but they can add RAM later if
    >
    > it
    >
    >>turns out the user is a hair-on-fire 'worst case' scenario, although SDR
    >>SDRAM isn't so 'cheap' anymore.
    >
    >
    > "Worst-case"? That wasn't anywhere *near* the worst-case. In fact,
    > that's pretty much average for what I've seen in anything other than a small
    > mom-and-pop shop. : )
    >
    > steve
    >
    >

    Whatever.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Steve Wolfe" <unt@see.signature.com> wrote in message news:<2l03kiF6s01kU1@uni-berlin.de>... so did another contributor...

    > > Win98SE won't even use up 64 meg. Or rather, it'll make the disk cache
    > > large enough to appear to use up the spare, but the O.S. doesn't 'need'
    > that.

    > If anything, Win98SE does a horrible job of the disk cache - it creates
    > overly large caches, failing to release the memory when needed, and puts
    > the machine into swap unnecessarily early. They tried to copy Unix's
    > memory management attitude, and got it wrong. I can't count how many
    > times people have told me "My machine is running slow, but I should have
    > plenty of memory." Upon inspection, the machine was swapping in and out
    > so that 98SE could have an overly large disk cache. Limitting the size of
    > the cache to something reasonable, in EVERY case, made the machine swap
    > less, run more apps, and act more responsively. NT and 2000 are much,
    > much more intelligent about how they handle disk cache sizes and swapping.


    So what would you set cache size to with 98se and 256M RAM?

    Regards, NT
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    > > If anything, Win98SE does a horrible job of the disk cache - it
    creates
    > > overly large caches, failing to release the memory when needed, and puts
    > > the machine into swap unnecessarily early. They tried to copy Unix's
    > > memory management attitude, and got it wrong. I can't count how many
    > > times people have told me "My machine is running slow, but I should have
    > > plenty of memory." Upon inspection, the machine was swapping in and out
    > > so that 98SE could have an overly large disk cache. Limitting the size
    of
    > > the cache to something reasonable, in EVERY case, made the machine swap
    > > less, run more apps, and act more responsively. NT and 2000 are much,
    > > much more intelligent about how they handle disk cache sizes and
    swapping.
    >
    >
    > So what would you set cache size to with 98se and 256M RAM?

    For a generic machine, I'd probably set minfilecache to about 16 megs, and
    maxfilecache to 64. If you load sysmon, and add graphs for unused physical
    memory, disk cache size, and swap file *in use* (not just the swap file
    size), and watch the machine under your usage patterns, you'll quickly start
    to see if you should go higher or lower than those values.

    steve
Ask a new question

Read More

Overclocking