| |
Hy Mike,
I like the idea but I will have to have a deeper look into it ... With NT
you will not have any problems using two CPU even if MLCad is single
threaded (but it isn't some gui things run parallel) but in this case NT
will properly give MLCad it's own CPU since it needs much processing power
...
Michael
Mike Poindexter <lego@poindexter.cc> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
Fxv3uw.DxL@lugnet.com...
> Michael,
>
> I believe the reason that NT is faster in big machines is that it can
> address large amounts of memory more quickly. When I was discussing NT • with
> a Photoshop expert, he said that for 128MB+ machines, it is much faster in
> NT, as Win9x can only address 64 MB RAM at a time. It made sense when he
> told me, but my re-explaining of it probably is not quite accurate. • Either
> way, I have been told by others that NT was the one to use for speed in a
> high RAM system.
>
> I do have a tall order for you: Can you make MLCAD multi-threaded? I • will
> be upgrading my system to a dual PIII 800 in about 2 months and would love
> to have MLCAD be able to access both processors for more speed.
>
> Mike Poindexter
>
> Michael Lachmann <michael.lachmann@maxmobil.at> wrote in message
> news:Fxu8yD.Mr3@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.cad, Rui Manuel Silva Martins writes:
> > <SNIP>
> > > But I personnaly wouldn't sugest someone to use W2000, if they weren't • already
> > > using NT. Either NT or W2000 are big Memory and CPU Hogs.
> > > So, if you want to keep your speed, just wait a little bit more and get • windows
> > > Millenium, the sequel to Win98.
> > >
> > > See ya
> > > Rui Martins
> >
> >
> > That's somehow new for me, since at home (I'm using a PII 350 with • 128MB-Ram)
> > programs like MLCad are definitly faster on NT than on 95 or 98. Sure • the
> > display response and boot-time is shorter than on NT, but when it goes • to
> > calculate things NT seems to be faster than anything else ... except • Linux
> :-)
> > From friends I heared similar things.
> >
> > Michael
>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Windows 2000
|
| Michael, I believe the reason that NT is faster in big machines is that it can address large amounts of memory more quickly. When I was discussing NT with a Photoshop expert, he said that for 128MB+ machines, it is much faster in NT, as Win9x can (...) (26 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
