On Feb 4, 8:53=A0am, d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:07 pm, "Janes" <dja...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > =A0 "CADaholic" <CADaho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
messagenews:014fce77-1373=
-4da3-beef-8b97ad7d93e0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > =A0 I second that. =A0I used the 3 gig switch for over a year and it
wor=
ked
> > =A0 very well.
>
> > =A0 > Ben's comments show that a 64 bit system is a good way of
eliminat=
ing the memory restrictions built into 32 bit systems. But also consider
set=
ting the 3 gig switch in the XP boot.ini file. It extends useable memory.
Th=
e Microsoft website has intructions for how to do this. You may also find
th=
e XP Help on "bootcfg" useful. Or Google this NG for 3 gig switch as this
to=
pic has come up before, but not recently.
>
> > =A0 > 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
ins=
talled the maximum 4 gigs of RAM, thinking this would cure the problem. It
h=
elped a little, but not enough until they set the /3G switch. It can have
it=
s down side as it reassigns a gig of system memory to user memory, but all
t=
he memory problems, slowness and cra****ng went away.
>
> > That said, it's the cheap and dirty way of extending the life of a
syste=
m. And, if it doesn't work, if you're still hitting the ceiling, you are
buy=
ing the 64 bit system. So, if it works, great, but recognize that it could
b=
e a tem****ary fix if your memory demands keep growing. Since memory has
alwa=
ys come at a premium on the big, expensive workstations, Pro/e built in a
lo=
t of memory management tools that help greatly with the memory
restrictions.=
I'm thinking of Simp Reps and shrinkwrapped assemblies for space claim
obje=
cts 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
ha=
ve 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
Will 64 bit machines put carets in everyone's groups postings? So I
can understand who said what?
|
