Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM installed on them and
using Win 98 and have not experienced any problems of the sort you describe.
I have experienced problems with the motherboard not being able to resolve
conflicts in timing between different types of 168 pin DIMMs but no
o
feeling really lucky you may
wish to look at my post just above this one.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:18 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Rob wrote:
>If all I was doing was scanning and editing pictures, I
>would already be running Win2K.
>From what I've read here and in various computer mags, maybe you should wait
for the next "New and Improved" Windows version, if only for saving the cost
of one upgrade. Some reporters are al
"Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> of one upgrade. Some reporters are already giving Windows "X" glowing
> reviews...but then, some give glowing reviews to everything just to keep
the
> free stuff flowing.
XP aka Whistler looks OK, but Win2K is here and now and stable.
Rob
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500 LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and
> the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-)
Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't add any benefit, which is what
I have been told to expect.
Regards
To
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:11:40 +1000 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?=
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB
> >or less.
Daft though this sounds, AIUI there really isn't any point to trying to use
>512Mb RAM in a W98 machine. It jus
bject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500 LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and
> the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-)
Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't
Two of the suggestions amount to not installing your new memory - pretty
dumb suggestions.
So I'd definitely use:
"Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum
amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less."
Further I would suggest the bigg
Hi Rob,
You can also overcome this problem by using a little memory
management program called Cacheman. It is an excellent program. Go to
http://www.outertech.com/ to take a look at it.
Regards
Geoff Murray
www.geoffmurray.com
http://www.ozimages.com.au/portfolio/gmurray.asp
- Orig
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Greenbank
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
This is probably because you are usually using a process that is grabbing
sufficient memory t
Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500
- Original Message -
From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 9:25 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> >This is probably because you are usually using a process th
> There are also large numbers of motherboards around which don't
> cache the memory above 512Mb (or an even lower limit). With those it may
> degrade overall performance to add more than 512 Mb.
>
I can't think of any motherboards for Pentium II/III/IV,Celerons,Athlons or
Durons for which this
This is off topic, but several of Intel's recent chipsets have had memory
addressability limitations. The 810 and it's variants, for instance cannot
even address 1 gig (I forget the threshold, either 512 or 768).
Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
I understood and would like someone to confirm that the Windows resource
meter had nothing to do with how much RAM you had, it was only a measure of
usage of some stack or similar.
When I increased my RAM I didn't notice any change, and I still regularly
run out of resources because I seem to
I was trying to catch up by reading messages backwards, so didn't see Rob's
original post. I think this answers my question - I should not bother
with more than 512MB until I move up from Win98.
Still not sure about what "resources" actually covers though.
Like you Rob I would be using Win20
At 11:42 AM 7/27/01 +1000, Julian wrote:
>I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or RAM
>is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.
Buy it anyway. It's never been cheaper. Sooner or
later it'll come in handy. Maybe use it in another
PC
People keep saying don't get more than 512M with W98, but having 768M
does speed up Photoshop when working with large files on my old NEC
Athlon system:
W98SE, PS6.01, PS set to use 80% of free RAM:
(in PS, 768M system has 569,607K, 512M system has 379443K)
1) resizing 20M TIFF to 200M: 768M sys
I'm running Win 95 with 768 MB of Ram and I've never had a problem that I
know of. I wonder if the problem is at all CPU dependent? I remember hearing
about folks running 768 MB of RAM way back when that represented a huge
investment.
Regards, Ron Carlson
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Ge
and memory limits in Windows
I understood and would like someone to confirm that the Windows resource
meter had nothing to do with how much RAM you had, it was only a measure of
usage of some stack or similar.
When I increased my RAM I didn't notice any change, and I still regularly
run o
> I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or
RAM
> is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.
>
I don't know as I only have 512MB but I suspect this is 99% true. That is
99% of users will see no difference because most normal applications just
d
ratch disk after a lot of history states.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Raphael Bustin
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
At 11:42 AM 7/27/01
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I noticed in both systems that since
> the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
> less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> resources available), which i
> > I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver
512MB or
> RAM
> > is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.
> >
>
> I don't know as I only have 512MB but I suspect this is 99% true.
That is
> 99% of users will see no difference because most normal applic
: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I noticed in both systems that since
> the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
> less system resources being used than previ
nds to read the same file.
--Dana
--
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in
Windows
Date: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:22 AM
< snip >
On the other hand I'm reasonably sure the main
"Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > I noticed in both systems that since
> > the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows
proportionately
> > less system resources being used than previously (ie
"Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
> times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
> compressed TIFFs
Paintshop Pro is the same. Opening a film scan in PSP takes *far* longer
than in Irfanview.
> BTW, Ed'
PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:57 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> As I have already said in earlier posts, my experience with ram greater
than
> 512MB on two different Win 98 systems have been different in tha
---
From: "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 10:40 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
> times. PhotoShop seems to b
s a lot to do with the skill of the person who set them
up :-)
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "B. Twieg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 2:40 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> I had
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:09:14 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the
> additional RAM is being taken into account and used?
Dunno, especially as I think PS does some of its own memory management
instead of the OS. Bu
At 09:57 AM 7/28/01 +0100, Steve wrote:
>I've noticed PS is slow too. Worse still it doesn't compress well either -
>try opening a file from Vuescan and then saving it with PS and it comes out
>significantly larger.
Sorry, this doesn't sound right. For a given image,
a given file format, and
OK thanks Rob and Rafe for luring me to check the price of memory. I
nearly fell off my chair - $68(australian) for 256MB so I bought two, and a
40G HDD as well what the hell I was trying to work out what to do to save
my over-full disks anyway.
I have just installed same, now have double the
At 11:27 28-07-01 +0100, Tony Sleep wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:09:14 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>wrote:
>
> > Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the
> > additional RAM is being taken into account and used?
A more informative Task manager should be he
"Raphael Bustin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, this doesn't sound right. For a given image,
> a given file format, and compression method, the
> file size should be deterministic.
You're wrong, Rafe. :) I agree with what you're saying in principle but
what was said is true - Vuescan's LZW
"Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Further, in my experience of Win NT 4.0 the claimed reliability of desktop
> PC's is a fallacy. At work I have used around a dozen PC's and all have
been
> much less reliable than my home PCs on Win9x.
Gah. I use NT 4.0 SP6a on my computer at work a
>
> NT and Win2K include a highly configurable Performance Monitor
> (perfmon.exe) but Win9X doesn't have equivalent functionality built in.
SYSMON. As I keep saying.
TaskInfo looks cool, downloading it as I speak.
Jawed
Steve wrote:
>I've noticed PS is slow too. Worse still it doesn't compress well either -
try opening a file from Vuescan and then saving it with PS and it comes out
significantly larger.
And Rafe wrote:
>Sorry, this doesn't sound right. For a given image,
>a given file format, and compression
Corel PhotoPaint is the same as PSP - it will open Vuescan 24-bit compressed
but not 48-bit compressed.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanner
I'm running NT4 SP6a, dual 850MHz PIII, 512MB. Reliability: it gets used
for about 3 hours a day, five days a week on average and I think I've
had about 2 blue screens in the last year. Oh, Minolta Scan Speed by the
way.
Mark
>
>Obscanning - I wonder how many of those using Windows with filmscan
rade
the scanner computer!
Thanks for your comments,
--Dana
--
From: geoff murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2001 6:15 AM
Hi Dana,
Gee your times seem very slow. I tr
>Obscanning - I wonder how many of those using Windows with filmscanners are
>running NT or Win2K?
My Microtek Scanmaker 35t Plus is connected to my NT4.0 box. My new Epson
1640SU is connected to my laptop (via USB) running W2K Pro. I was going to
get a SCSI cable and connect it to my NT box a
, July 28, 2001 7:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Steve wrote:
>I've noticed PS is slow too. Worse still it doesn't compress well either -
try opening a file from Vuescan and then saving it with PS and it comes out
sig
ate
controller will make your life just that little bit sweeter.
Jawed
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dana Trout
> Sent: 28 July 2001 20:49
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory li
> >I've noticed PS is slow too. Worse still it doesn't compress well
either -
> >try opening a file from Vuescan and then saving it with PS and it comes
out
> >significantly larger.
>
>
> Sorry, this doesn't sound right. For a given image,
> a given file format, and compression method, the
> file
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> I find that little of the time spent is due to the disk drive, which is
> the reason for my comment that a 7200 rpm drive, even thou
on 7/28/01 11:09 AM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Further, in my experience of Win NT 4.0 the claimed reliability of desktop
>> PC's is a fallacy. At work I have used around a dozen PC's and all have
> been
>> much less reliable than m
Do not assume that all reconstituted images are created equal.
Short cuts are sometimes taken in translating the file back into an
uncompressed image which might speed up decompression, but not represent
the full nature of the image.
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
If you have Win95 or Win 98 there is a little utility called SYSMON. It has
a fantastic range of graphs it can show you
ECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
At 11:27 28-07-01 +0100, Tony Sleep wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:09:14 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>wrote:
>
> > Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the
> > addition
is is just a
caution and some additional information for you in your evaluations.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 8:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limi
same regarding
the Ram over 512 MB being utilized in my system and setup under Win 98.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limi
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pat Perez
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 11:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Strictly speaking, what Win 3.x through Me consider 'system resources' are a
fixed
: Saturday, July 28, 2001 5:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:09:14 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the
> additional RAM is being take
have yet to see anything other
than an exact match -- if there is a difference there is something
definitely wrong with the computer!
Ta for now,
--Dana
--
From: geoff murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
uly 2001 23:29
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> Now that I see you are stating load times for uncompressed files I see
> our times are much more similar. LZW compression is very CPU-intensive
> and there
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> Now that I see you are stating load times for uncompressed files I see
> our times are much more similar. LZW compression is very CPU-inten
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Date: Sunday, July 29, 2001 6:34 PM
Hi Dana,
I have just scanned an image and saved it as compressed and
non-compressed files. This particular image surprised me in that it
compressed to a remarkable deg
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 01:10:13 +0100 Steve Greenbank
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I have not checked but I suspect lossless is actually very nearly
> lossless.
> i.e. there are some rounding errors from the compression algorithms.
Shouldn't be, in the ZIP/LZW type compression found in compress
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 01:09:57 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Obscanning - I wonder how many of those using Windows with filmscanners
> are
> running NT or Win2K?
I even bought NT4, but never installed it as the W98 machine I use for PS
is unbelievably stable, probably because
Laurie wrote:
> Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM
> installed on them and using Win 98 and have not
> experienced any problems of the sort you describe.
The Q page on Microsoft's site says "...you *may* experience one or more
of the following symptoms..." (my emphasis). The
Julian wrote:
> I understood and would like someone to confirm that
> the Windows resource meter had nothing to do with
> how much RAM you had, it was only a measure of
> usage of some stack or similar.
You may be thinking of the GDI, USER and SYSTEM resources. I think in Win98
each of these is
, July 26, 2001 1:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in
Windows
Laurie wrote:
> Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM
> installed on them and using Win 98 and have not
> experienced any problems of the sort you
64 matches
Mail list logo
