Martin:

Now THAT was a response I was looking for.

Thanx...
    Dave



"Martin" <ml_news@ddnospamddml1dd.co.uk.dd> wrote in message
news:cv9Yb.7004$cb7.55365@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
| David H. Lipman wrote:
| > Um...that's a problem with Winx/ME only.
| [...]
| >
| > Now do you have a "REAL" example ?
|
| Depending on how good your memory managers are, there are longer linked
| lists to churn through as you get more pages of memory to play with.
| Linux Kernel 2.6 has only just now got reversed linked lists to speed up
| swapping shared pages. I very much doubt certain other OSes are speedy
| about such things...
|
| (And some OSes/versions can't even address 1GByte.)
|
| Then, on the hardware side of things, some PC motherboards only support
| cache for a limited address space. Add more RAM than the cache can
| address and your extra RAM is used uncached (very slow).
|
| Also, if you've tweaked your RAM timings for minimum delays, then the
| extra RAM can force you to slow those timings back.
|
| ... And you can pedantically contrive any arguments you wish.
|
|
| To use an old phrase:
| "Horses for courses."
|
| For the CPU bound task s@h, above about 16MB of free RAM gains you
| virtually nothing.
|
| Other tasks only gain an advantage if they can usefully use that RAM.
| Otherwise, you just have a very expensive poorly utilised disk cache.
|
| With present Windoze bloat, about 256MB to 512MB is a reasonable
| expense. Anything more, unless you have specific requirements, is an
| unbalanced extravagance in my opinion.
|
|
| Have fun,
| Martin
|
|
| -- 
| ----------   Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today.
| - Martin -   Teach him how to fish and he won't bother you for weeks!
| - 53N 1W -   - Anon
| ----------
|