"graminator" <grahamew@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:72e377f3-478a-4d72-9e0e-93f49af3eac6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Feb 4, 8:53 am, d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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
Will 64 bit machines put carets in everyone's groups postings? So I
can understand who said what?
______________________________
Sorry, my bad (I think). I had OE set to reply in HTML. Replying to that
in
7-bit texter format strips the MIME/html code but doesn't deal with the
result very well. However, it's yet another question as to what readers
will
run on 64 bit machines. Many, I suspect, are from 16 bit days and, if some
32 bit software doesn't run on 64 bit systems, the prognosis for 16 apps
is
pretty shaky.
David Janes
|
