PC memory

  • Thread starter Thread starter gaffer
  • Start date Start date
G

gaffer

New member
I'm about to upgrage my computer but have a delema. Im getting a P1.7 with asus motherbd and I want 512 rambus memory. The problem is: window 98SE will recognize more then 256 but won't utilize it.

To solve that problem, you need to use XP , NT, or 2000 Oper sys. They can handle what ever you can afford as far as memory goes.

Problem two is: How good is XP or 2000 for computer recording? I can't get a straight answer from anyone.

I use cool edit pro, cakewalk 9.0 pro audio, rolandSC8820 for midi and Echo Darla 24 sound card.

Can anyone give me the good info on this subject?

I know there is another thread regarding this subject, but I want more info on this subject.

Are there any Pro's out there who can shed more light on this topic?
 
Um, a lot of what's said about the maximum memory that Win9x can use is heresay and rumor. I've heard people saying that it can only handle 128, or 256, ....blah. A lot of this stems back from the old 64MB Win 3.1 limitations, AND from old chipset limitations.

In reality, Windows95 can address 2GB of physical memory, and a total of 4GB virtual memory (physical + swap).

512MB will work just fine. Windows will "utilize it." There is a glitch with the 9x vcache that makes installing more than 512MB less attractive, but even then it will still "utilize it", just not nearly as effectively as an NT based operating sytem.

I'd also like to say that you will only be using memory if you're actually using memory. That might sound funny, but I've seen plenty of people install more memory than they actually require.

On a personal note, I prefer Windows 2000 over any other Windows operating system. It is mature, stable, and fast. I've run into enough XP glitches to not want it on my recording system yet, though there are a few people who are happy with it. Windows9x is good in terms of hardware and software support, but I'll never go back to that horrible piece of crap excuse for an operating system :)

Slackmaster 2000
 
I always thought 512 was the max for 98SE but I've heard different things.

In regards to Rambus most benchmarks have shown that there is very little performance gain from DDR and RD over SDRam.

www.tomshardware.com is a good IT site.
 
I always thought 512 was the max for 98SE but I've heard different things.

In regards to Rambus most benchmarks have shown that there is very little performance gain from DDR and RD over SDRam.

www.tomshardware.com is a good IT site.
 
I always thought 512 was the max for 98SE but I've heard different things.

In regards to Rambus most benchmarks have shown that there is very little performance gain from DDR and RD over SDRam.

www.tomshardware.com is a good site for general comp info.
 
2GB is the max. 512 is the max before you run into the vcache bug. I'd dig up some KB articles but I'm too lazy :)

Slackmaster 2000
 
Slack is right in that Win 95 OS can address up to 2 Gig. However I have seen several articles that maintain it doesn't effectively use memory above a certain threshhold, which if "memory" serves me was something like 384 meg. Above that amount perfomance doesn't increase, and it may decrease. The definitive article I saw was in PC magazine where they did some fairly serious lab testing, but I don't recall which issue. In any case it was written about the time Win 2000 came out, it compared Win 95, Win 98, Win NT 4, and Win 2000.

Although (again as Slack indicated) a particular application in Win 95 or 98 may use or even require a greater amount amount of memory.
 
Maybe it's me..and wanting to see a difference, but I installed another 128 mgs of RAM to give me a total of 256....and I'm running Win95. I think things seem better.. as an example, I can now use the C4 multiband in cooledit (to preview without chopping), whereas I could only use it before in Wavelab. Also, not sure if it is a function of memory or not, but processing files seemed quicker and the defrag went good too.
 
Ok, here's the deal.

The VCACHE is the Windows9x disk cache (remember smartdrive on DOS anyone?). What it does is to use a hunk of memory to cache, for instance, frequently-used applications and data. When you load up Microsoft Word for the first time after starting your computer, it takes a few seconds to fire up. If you then close Word, and re-open it, it pops right up like it was ready and waiting for you! Likewise, you open a file and then close it, and the next time you open the file it just screams up super fast! That's the VCACHE in action.

The larger the VCACHE, the less physical memory that will be available to programs, and the sooner swapping will occur. Typically, Windows dynamically manages the VCACHE for you. When you add more memory to windows, even though you're not "technically" using it, you can see some performance benefits in that the VCACHE will be larger, AND each program you run will have access to more physical memory before having to swap out. This does not mean that adding more and more memory will increase *real* performance. You can 1GB of memory to your system and n-Track still isn't going to run any better because you're so far from your minimum requirement.

Now the VCACHE can cause some problems. For one thing, we're talking about Win9x, which wasn't made for anything too heavy duty. While the VCACHE is supposed to resize itself to give memory back to applications that need it, sometimes it won't, resulting the machine slowing down considerably. There is also a serious bug that when more than 512MB of memory is installed in a computer, the VCACHE can grow until it consumes the entire system arena leaving no virtual memory for other applications. Also, AGP is mapped to the system arena and some pretty serious looking problems can occur if the VCACHE grows too large. The trick, then, is to limit the VCACHE maximum size.

Now this is something that I haven't recommended in the past, because it's one of those goofy tweeks that people often get carried away with. *Usually* you don't have to worry about any of this. Anyhow, the trick is balancing the size of the VCACHE such that you get adequate windows performance (files, data, and network) and still have enough memory left over such that each application you run has enough memory available to avoid swapping as much as possible. In your system.ini file, there is a section called [vcache] under which you can enter the following lines:

MaxFileCache=X
MinFileCache=X

Where "X" is some whole number multiple of 1024K. From the information I've seen, an acceptable number for the maximum if you have over 256MB or so is 32MB which would be 1024*32 = 32768. The minimum size can be whatever...but it's probably not a bad idea to set it to the same size as the maximum.

How do you juggle the VCACHE for optimum performance for recording? That I don't know. There are articles on the net about this. It's really a very complex thing to determine, though, and you can only experiment properly *if there is a problem.* If you don't have any problems, then you have nothing to measure. If you're getting swapping while recording, and it's limiting the number of tracks that you can get, then decreasing the size of the VCACHE might just be the ticket. Decrease it too much and overall windows performance suffers. That's why I usually recommend NOT optimizing unless you have a reason to optimize.

At any rate, limiting the VCACHE isn't a difficult task, so even the 512MB+ bug isn't such a big deal. Some people freak out and say that "oh crap windows won't use over 512MB" which isn't really true. (Note: microsoft recommends keeping physical memory below 1GB just in general for win9x.)

At any rate again, windows9x memory management isn't fantastic. Leaks both in applications and windows will bring your system to its kness, requiring frequent reboots. Performance is goofy and difficult to predict. The less you do on your Win9x machine, the better. Windows 2000 is most certainly a recommended platform if all of your hardware and software is compatible. Limiting your machine function to one specific task like recording isn't really necessary, for instance (this is more involved than just memory management, however).

Again I'll just say that people should try to get a good feel for their systems. You can feel when the CPU is cooking and when memory is being taxed. Never optimize unless you know for sure that you need to do so. Never add memory to a system that doesn't require additional memory. Etc.

Slackmaster 2000
 
pc memory

OK, Slackmaster

But all I want is a good recording PC with enough power to handle 6 or 8 audio tracks with smoth efficiency using the hardware and software I have.

Are you saying that with a P 1.7 and win 98 SE , I can use 512 mg of Rambus Memory with out any problems or should I stick with 256?

By the way, I thank you very much for all the detail on memory. eventho its still unclear to me how to proceed.

I',m using 256 sdram now with ME and it's OK but this PC will not handle any more memory--I get errors, slowing down, and crashes. I've tried everything --swapping simms, in different slots, new memory, every combination. It doesn't work on my PC.

I don't want to appear stupid, but when your spending a $1000, you want it right.

Gaffer
 
That setup should serve you

I've never used ME, but I'd dump it in favor of Win2k or XP. Cakewalk developed Sonar on Win2k and XP has a lot in common with it.

Personal experience department:
I've gotten over 8 tracks plus midi on Pro Audio 9 under 98se with 256MB ram without breaking a sweat (plugins, too) on my 1GHz Intel. I upgraded to Win2k and Sonar and I'm happy with it. I'm working on a project now. So far 10 audio tracks, EQ's on every track, one reverb and Revalver amp sim going. Fader automation on 4 tracks so far. My cpu is at 25% usage, my audio HD (a 5400rpm) is at about 13%. I'm sure there are differing opinions on this, but I was told - by a Cakewalk guy - more than 256 is a waste.
I think the ASUS board is a good move too.


Sorry about the Super Bowl, heh heh...
 
pc memory

Thanks,

Im still not over the Super Bowl yet--I need more healing time.

Is the switch from Cakewalk PA to sonar pretty painless?
 
I didn't upgrade to the XL because I didn't really need the extra soft synths and loops. As a result my cost was $99. So the monetary pain wasn't too bad. I then upgraded (free) to Version 1.3, which is a must because it fixes some bugs and introduces new file extensions and some cool features. I actually sent away for the 1.3 upgrade on disk because it was only $5 and it's a full install. Maybe 1.3 is automatic for an upgrade from PA9 now. As for the interface. I think it's a vast improvement. Automated mixing is easy and intuitive. Plus it comes with automated effects. I could go on. Yes I think it's worth it. There's a good review on it at Prorec.com.

PS I couldn't resist the Super Bowl crack as I can remember the Cards beating my Red Sox back in '67 (wow, am I that old?)...

Good luck. See you in the Cakewalk Forum.:cool:
 
gaffer,

Sorry there. Since you're building a new machine, basically, going with 512MB isn't a bad idea. That's about the max I would do, though. I think that you can get away with 256MB, however, because I've never really run into memory problems with 256MB and I work on 24 track projects with a lot of processing and whatnot. Every person's situation is different though, and like they say, "you can never have enough memory"...unless it starts causing problems :)

If you want to play it totally safe, then I would recommend getting two 256MB sticks, which might even be cheaper than one 512MB stick in some cases. If you do find that 512MB for whatever reason is causing problems, even though I don't think it will, you can always pull out one of the 256MB sticks. At that point you can start thinking about upgrading to Windows 2000 if you haven't already.

Good luck. I wish that there was specific advice that would apply to all people in all situations, but there's not :(

Slackmaster 2000
 
P.S. I believe Windows ME to be a royal piece of garbage. I never recorded with it though. I did recrod on Windows 98 for a while and I can say that Windows 2000 is a considerably more pleasurable experience....IF you've got the hardware and software.

P.S.2. Windows 2000 has the BEST hardware support I've ever seen in a windows version. The only problems I've ever run into have been with low end USB devices like scanners and whatnot, and prosumer audio devices. It seems that the prosumer audio market has been very slow to move to NT based operating systems, and drivers for a lot of products have been lacking. I use a Delta44 on Windows 2000, though, and think it works fine.

Slackmaster 2000
 
pc memory

Thanks ChuckU and Slackmaster,

Ok, I think I know what I'll do, thanks to you guys.

I'm going with 512 Rambus (2x256) and win 2000.

Also, P 1.7 and asus p4 motherbd with the 850 chipset.

I also remember the 67 series. I was 27 then. Man Im old.


Gaffer

PS Im buying my computer from www.digirex.com

check it out--go to "go configure" quality stuff and low prices.
 
Back
Top