On Feb 3, 12:07 pm, "Janes" <dja...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "CADaholic" <CADaho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
messagenews:014fce77-1373-4da3-beef-8b97ad7d93e0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I second that. I used the 3 gig switch for over a year and it worked
> very well.
>
> > Ben's comments show that a 64 bit system is a good way of
eliminating the memory restrictions built into 32 bit systems. But also
consider setting the 3 gig switch in the XP boot.ini file. It extends
useable memory. The Microsoft website has intructions for how to do this.
You may also find the XP Help on "bootcfg" useful. Or Google this NG for 3
gig switch as this topic has come up before, but not recently.
> >
> > David Janes
>
> I've had good experience with it, too. As is Bertil, I was bumping into
the memory ceiling, everything slowing down, freezing, cra****ng. Then IT
installed the maximum 4 gigs of RAM, thinking this would cure the problem.
It helped a little, but not enough until they set the /3G switch. It can
have its down side as it reassigns a gig of system memory to user memory,
but all the memory problems, slowness and cra****ng went away.
>
> That said, it's the cheap and dirty way of extending the life of a
system. And, if it doesn't work, if you're still hitting the ceiling, you
are buying the 64 bit system. So, if it works, great, but recognize that it
could be a tem****ary fix if your memory demands keep growing. Since memory
has always come at a premium on the big, expensive workstations, Pro/e
built in a lot of memory management tools that help greatly with the memory
restrictions. I'm thinking of Simp Reps and shrinkwrapped assemblies for
space claim objects and even the use of surface models which tend to be
much lighter weight that hundreds of features. IOW, balancing the brute
force method of bigger, faster hardware with some sophisticated techniques.
The latter is where I have to most room to grow, the fewest people to
convince, the most initiative and often, the biggest payoff.
>
> David Janes
I ran ProE2001 (and later WF 3.0) on Windows XP (32 bit), Dual 2.3?
GHz CPU, with 4 GB of ram. I used the /3GB switch with no problems,
but still ocassionally hit the 3 GB memory limit when opening large
assemblies, or working with 3D scan data (STL). Some computers in our
facility had stability problems with the 3GB option.
We started purchasing some computers with Windows XP x64 about 2 years
ago. The first computers had stability problems, seemingly related to
video drivers, and only one printer in the office had 64 bit drivers
available. Overtime the configuration was tweaked, new video and print
drivers were released, and stability is much improved.
Now I'm running WF 3.0 on Windows XP x64, 64-bit, Dual 3 GHz Xeon
(dual core), 16 GB of RAM. The CPU's are somewhat faster than the
older machine the performance is improved. Stability is awesome. I no
longer have problems with too little memory. I really make use of the
extra memory and CPU when running CFD or FEA analysis, ProE . Most 32
bit software installs and runs fine on XP x64, but some software does
not work at all, and 64 bit drivers still aren't available for some of
our printers. For now, the workaround is to keep a 32 bit computer to
run a couple of programs. Overall I'm much happier with the 64 bit
machine than the 32 bit, but it really depends on what you're working
on.
Dave
|
