<dgp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:5c6c0bfb-e859-443e-a983-e07b9a7ca5f1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
>
Thanks, that was very helpful, informative post.
David Janes
|
