SCOUG Logo


Next Meeting: Sat, TBD
Meeting Directions


Be a Member
Join SCOUG

Navigation:


Help with Searching

20 Most Recent Documents
Search Archives
Index by date, title, author, category.


Features:

Mr. Know-It-All
Ink
Download!










SCOUG:

Home

Email Lists

SIGs (Internet, General Interest, Programming, Network, more..)

Online Chats

Business

Past Presentations

Credits

Submissions

Contact SCOUG

Copyright SCOUG



warp expowest
Pictures from Sept. 1999

The views expressed in articles on this site are those of their authors.

warptech
SCOUG was there!


Copyright 1998-2024, Southern California OS/2 User Group. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group. OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation. All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.

The Southern California OS/2 User Group
USA

SCOUG-HELP Mailing List Archives

Return to [ 16 | January | 2002 ]

>> Next Message >>


Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:43:51 PST7
From: "Steven Levine" <steve53@earthlink.net >
Reply-To: scoug-help@scoug.com
To: scoug-help@scoug.com
Subject: SCOUG-Help: Re: MAX HeadRAM

=====================================================
If you are responding to someone asking for help who
may not be a member of this list, be sure to use the
REPLY TO ALL feature of your email program.
=====================================================

In <3C4514E2.53FC@peterskye.com>, on 01/15/02
at 09:52 PM, Peter Skye said:

>This is true for some older chipsets (and maybe some stupid new ones,
>too). With those, memory above 256 MB used a slower hardware access
>cycle *and* sometimes it wasn't cached, either.

This pretty much stopped in the middle of the 486 era, possibly before.

>I'm not familiar with the "Heavy Iron" memory slowdown effect which Ron
>Higgin discussed but on a /360 model 50 with a memory configuration that
>was large for the time your programs could run three to four times
>*slower* when the extra memory was plugged in. The reason was pretty
>darn simple but the bottom line was "yes, more memory meant you ran
>slower".

I've run stuff on a 360/50 with 256KB, which was quite a step up from the
360/30 with 64MB, at the time. I don't recall seeing this, but then
again, I only used it casually. What caused it? I don't even recall what
the max memory was for that box. 1MB maybe?

I do recall being able to run dozens of programs under MFT rather than the
3 allowed by DOS certainly offered to opportunity for more contention.

Steven

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Steven Levine" MR2/ICE 2.30a #10183 Warp4/FP15
www.scoug.com irc.webbnet.org #scoug (Wed 7pm PST)
----------------------------------------------------------------

=====================================================

To unsubscribe from this list, send an email message
to "steward@scoug.com". In the body of the message,
put the command "unsubscribe scoug-help".

For problems, contact the list owner at
"rollin@scoug.com".

=====================================================


>> Next Message >>

Return to [ 16 | January | 2002 ]



The Southern California OS/2 User Group
P.O. Box 26904
Santa Ana, CA 92799-6904, USA

Copyright 2001 the Southern California OS/2 User Group. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group. OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation. All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.