Hi, I recently upgraded my RAM to 40mb SIMM from 12mb SIMM on my Dell Optiplex 433/le with Win 3.1/M$Dos 6.22 which has a 486sx processor. Himem takes longer to test its memory and the performance in both windows and dos is exactly the same. Under the dos prompt in windows, I typed MEM and showed the following: __________________________________________
Type Total Used Free Conventional 640k 59k 501k Upper 91k 91k 0k Reserved 384k 384k 0k Extended(XMS) 39,845k 38,821k 1,024k
Total under 1Mb 731k 150k 581k
Total expanded (EMS) 1,024k Free expanded (EMS) 1,024k
Largest executable program size 581k Largest free upper memory block 0k MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area __________________________________________
I typed MEM under dos and displayed the following:
Type Total Used Free Conventional 640k 43k 597k Upper 91k 76k 15k Reserved 384k 384k 0k Extended(XMS)* 39,845k 2,597k 37,248k
Total under 1Mb 731k 119k 612k
Total expanded (EMS) 33,152k Free expanded (EMS) 32,768k
*EMM 386 is using XMS memory to simulate EMS as needed.
Largest executable program size 597k Largest free upper memory block 15k MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area ___________________________________________
Help is appreciated. Thanks beforehand.
PS - just to let you know... i have only two simm slots and i upgraded my ram from a 8mb and a 4mb simm to a 32mb and a 8mb simm. Just to let u know.
What are you asking? There will not likely be any huge improvement in performance unless you are running a memory intensive application that, prior to the upgrade, would have made heavy use of the Windows swapfile.
If you have no programs that require expanded memory (EMS), I would recommend that you disable it in order to free up some upper memory (use the NOEMS parameter with emm386.exe)
Those people that think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do
I'm not sure about your machine, but on my 486, I believe its cache limit (level 2 cache on the motherboard) is 32 meg. When I installed another 32, the system slowed to a snail's pace. In my 64 meg scenario, the first 32 meg of my memory that was used was uncached, which was NOT good. In your case, you may have the same issue. Can you run your system with just the 32 meg chip in? I would try that, and see if that helps. Currently, it might be that the first 8 meg it uses (arguably the most important 8 of your 40) is going uncached and is causing performance issues.
Also, another thing to look at is increasing the amount of memory that is being used by the disk cache. Look in your C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT (it MIGHT even be in your C:\CONFIG.SYS) and see if there's a line such as this:
SMARTDRV.EXE 2048 2048
You can increase these values (maybe simply double them) and see a slight performance increase. Another location to look for is in the 386 Enhanced section of the Control Panel (I believe it's under the "Main" group). Look at your virtual memory settings, and you should see some memory values at the bottom. You could increase these values, as well.
Another possibility, as jboy indicates, is that you simply weren't using that much memory before and after the upgrade (not swapping much before the upgrade), and therefore you won't see much of an improvement until you start running more programs at the same time.
If you had enough memory before, additional RAM isn't going to improve performance.
If the RAM itself is faster, then there may be a discernable improvement (if all the RAM has a higher rated speed)
IF you are using smartdrv (and for Win31/DOS you should be) then the default setting with 6Mb+ of RAM is 2048K or 2Mb (no need to even put in a value) - but you may adjust that according to your needs - see the DOS Help program or enter
smartdrv /?
With 40Mb, it's doubtful if you will ever need much of a swapfile - you may even consider reducing its size
Those people that think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do
>>>Himem takes longer to test its memory and the performance in both windows and dos is exactly the same.<<<
Since you've got more memory to test, of course it's going to take longer. You would have likely noticed a bigger jump going from 4MB to 8MB.
See if you can locate Wintune 2.0 for Win3.1. It may give you some insight on how to better optimize your system (though it's been known to be occasionally wrong too...)
"Look at your virtual memory settings, and you should see some memory values at the bottom. You could increase these values, as well."
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that you necessarily increase your swapfile size. The cache values (below the swapfile info) I am referring to may only be available in WFW 3.11, not Windows 3.1.
If your new memory IS faster (60ns versus 70, for instance), then you definitely shouldn't be using the old with the new. At best, it will be slowed down by the slower memory. At worst, it will cause your system to crash and/or corrupt data.
I really don't understand what a cache/uncached or level 2 cache is. I'm not a veteran at this. You guys suggest I try removing the 8meg? I tried that and himem tested memory a lot faster, but no noticable performance.
And cool it jboy, not everyone's an expert and I don't get ur OEMS part.
'Cool it' yourself - if you don't understand the answers, fine - people will try and explain in terms that you might be able to follow - no need for attitude.
Computers are technical, it's unavoidable that there will be terminology - you can look up the big words on Google
Those people that think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do
Don't worry, Yuchao, you don't need to know what L2 cache is. Whether you may have a performance issue due to this or a possible conflict with your memory sticks, I'd go with just the 32 meg module and leave out the old 8 and 4.
Also, as I mentioned above, increase your hard disk cache (smartdrv).
As has been said, a lot depends upon what you run. You MAY have had an adequate amount of memory when you had 12 Meg. Unless the new memory is faster, then keep in mind that unused memory really serves no purpose (except maybe piece of mind).
Make sure you have smartdrv running, as jboy has indicated. And, in your case, you may as well use as much as 8 (8192) or heck, 16 (16384), meg for it, since it doesn't appear as if it's being used for anything else. This will allow for any program (or portions thereof), once read from disk, to be read from memory instead (up to 1000 times faster!) when read subsequent times.
To test that, set smartdrv to use lots of memory for its cache (probably in C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT):
SMARTDRV 16384 16384
(You may have to put "C:\DOS\" or "C:\WINDOWS\" ahead of "SMARTDRV" in that line, if C:\DOS or C:\WINDOWS aren't in the PATH statement, which also should be be a part of the C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT file.)
Reboot and then, once in Windows (or DOS, for that matter), run an application, close it, and then run it again. Did it load considerably faster the 2nd time?
The information on Computing.Net is the opinions of its users. Such
opinions may not be accurate and they are to be used at your own risk.
Computing.Net cannot verify the validity of the statements made on this site. Computing.Net and Computing.Net, LLC hereby disclaim all responsibility and liability for the content of Computing.Net and its accuracy.
PLEASE READ THE FULL DISCLAIMER AND LEGAL TERMS BY CLICKING HERE
