|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] Memory hardware questions
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 07 July 2002 23H:23, Arthur S. Alexion wrote:
> If we were using HTML mail, I'd put the <blink> tag on the following
> quote.
>
> On Sunday 07 July 2002 10:42 pm, Jason wrote:
> <blink> OT Disclaimer: This message is not suitable for all open source
> or
>
> > free software users. If reading info about M$ products or
> > applications offends you, do not read this message.</blink>
> >
> > On Sunday 07 July 2002 20H:15, Paul wrote:
> > > >>Windows doesn't do symlinks as far as I know.
> > > >
> > > >What do you call those shortcuts that new software slaps all over
> > > >the Windows desktop and task bar?
> > >
> > > You know Micro$oft. They will never refer to shortcuts as
> > > symlinks. Anyone who does might get sued or something.
> > >
> > > Even without shortcuts, you could create a batch file which simply
> > > calls the target program.
> >
> > Even these "shortcuts" don't typcially appear at most levels in the
> > FAT or NTFS filesystems. It can be difficult to even get Windows
> > Explorer to follow a "shortcut to a directory" sometimes.
>
> That's my fear that my theory won't work.
I am fairly certain that a shortcut will not help you out here.
>
> > Plus, if an application stores much of its configuration in the
> > Windows registry (most newer Windows applications do), parts of the
> > application (or the entire application) might fail to function or
> > even run at all by simply moving the files to the path that you want.
> > For example, if you move files from c:\Program Files\WinApp to
> > e:\Program Files\WinApp, you might not even be able to launch the
> > application anymore. However, simply reversing the change should
> > recover with no problems.
>
> My theory is that permanently placing these shortcuts where the program
> thinks it is will solve the runtime and registry problems.
Applications won't "see" the shortcuts. The shortcuts are at the
User/presentation level. They are not at the system/OS level. To most
software, these shortcuts don't look like the file/directory that they are
pointing to. They look like a file of type "shortcut".
>
> > <Windows Hack>
> > The closest thing to a true symlink in the windows world is remapping
> > a local drive. That slows things down a bit, because the network
> > layer is unnecessarily dragged into the middle of local disk access.
> > But, you can remap a drive that way. For instance, if you have some
> > references to c:\ and some to d:\, you can remap c: as d: so both
> > references work fine. </Windows Hack>
>
> Isn't that a DOS 3 hack, joining and remapping drives?
There was something like that. What I'm talking about is the Windows concept
of "sharing a drive" and then mapping it as another drive. You don't even
have to create a new "share". Your C: drive is probably already shared as C$
(admin share). You can map this as drive D. This is SMB/Windows Networking
stuff. I know it works in this respect under Win NT/2K. Should also work
under 98/ME. You might just have to enable "sharing".
>
> > And Arthur, no these headaches may not be worth it to you for the
> > small improvement in Swap access under Linux. IMHO, $35 for an
> > improvement from 48 MB to 128 MB of memory should be much more
> > noticeable. Even for Business Apps
>
> Yeah, and someone sent me a link where I can presumably upgrade my
> processor from 75 MHz to 400 MHz, voltage converter, cooling fan and
> all, even a hack for the bus speed, all for about $90.
At this point, might not be too much more money to just get a "not so new" (as
in not the top of the line, but a couple of notches lower) motherboard,
processor and RAM (you are already looking at buying RAM, plus spending $90).
You should be able to move the newer drive and your video card. If your case
is ATX, you could get a newer motherboard and processor for not too much.
But, that's up to you. You can always get XYZ for "just a little more". And,
$90 doesn't sound like too much for the other option mentioned.
>
> > :) However, if you feel like learning a bit, you'll most likely learn
> > : a good
> >
> > deal by going through the exercise of rearranging the drive
> > partitions.
>
> My first system was DOS 3.2 with a 100 MB hard drive -- the OS only
> supported 32 MB partitions.
>
> My current production windows computer is Win 95a (FAT16), meaning even
> my 2.4 GB drive is partitoned to reduce cluster size.
Well, this is still very much DOS under the hood.
>
> I'm sure there is more I could learn about partitions and fdisk, but if
> I don't have to . . .
Actually, I'd much rather be discussing the Linux / free software area side of
things :)
>
> > Another point w/ respect to performance:
> > I am assuming that the larger drive is much newer and probably
> > supports some level of Ultra DMA. I am also assuming that you have a
> > motherboard with dual IDE controller controllers. If these
> > controllers support Ultra DMA (66/100/133), you might notice a speed
> > difference by moving the slower drive to the secondary IDE
> > controller, or possibly making it the slave drive as opposed to the
> > master. This is assuming that the smaller/older drive does not
> > support Ultra DMA (66/100/133) and that you have an 80 conductor UDMA
> > cable connected to the primary IDE controller (color coded
> > connectors).
>
> The old drive is on the motherboard with the zip drive and the cd-rom
> sharing the controllers. The new drive is on its own Promise ATA/100
> card. Is that optimal?
<humor attempt=on> Hardware speaking, none of this is all that optimal.
</humor> Old PC hardware, working under Win95a = yuck. Just kidding, I've
still got a couple of 486s and a P90 hanging around. My wife has my old PII
233Mhz. And, I still use a PIII 500 Mhz for one of my desktop machines.
Seriously speaking, yes, having the newer UDMA drive on its own (3rd) UDMA IDE
controller is probably the best configuration for what you have.
>
> > And, if you are running Win 98/ME (particularly ME), you are right to
> > be cautious about switching the boot partition. In my experience, Win
> > 98/ME is much more sensitive to modifying the boot partition. I have
> > a scenario similar to what you are describing (moved Windows from the
> > 1st disk to the second disk). I was able to move things in several
> > stages with both Win NT and Win 2K partitions installed. I have a
> > different system with Win ME and SuSE. I "lost" my Windows partition
> > a number of times. This was not a problem for me, but could be
> > "problematic" for others. I am personally keeping fewer and fewer of
> > these Windows partitions around, but will be glad to help however I
> > can.
>
> Its Win 95, and its primarily there for my wife and kids when they feel
> they have to use it.
Understood, I'm still trying to get my wife to use Linux more (not buying
Windows licenses helps). Our dogs don't really have a preference... yet.
Good luck,
Jason Nocks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAj0pDpQACgkQ3CryLfCgqRm5zQCfWt3KclhzYx3jkZXQ3qLNIFcn
BaEAnjGoUW/QMmHar1HGIe8NxVU4/MF9
=YZir
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|