Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!mts.rpi.edu!FORUMEXP_Forum2News_Exporter
From: Forum2News_Exporter@mts.rpi.edu (Barry Bailey)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Zenith's performance running Win 3.0/E
Message-ID: <9848.8236.forumexp@mts.rpi.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 91 16:27:00 GMT
Lines: 39


 
   I too have perceived a performance problem with the stated
   configuration. I suspect though, the problem is related directly to
   the amount of RAM installed in our systems. We have 16Mhz with 1M, 2M
   and 4M (different purchasing deals depending on the phase of the
   moon), 20Mhz with 2M and 4M, 25 Mhz with 6M. The machines with the
   same amount of RAM seem to perform at similar speeds, regardless of
   clock speed. We later brought the 20Mhz 2M system upto 4M and saw a
   significant increase in apparent speed. When the 25Mhz had 4M of RAM
   it performed marginally better than the 20Mhz/16Mhz systems with 4M
   (none-the-less better - a "percentage" increase vs "multiples"
   increase). Anything above 4M (i.e. 6M) doesn't seem to effect system
   performance for "normal" applications. 6M does enable you to run more
   applications and/or larger data-sets at similar speeds (vs SWAPDISK
   speeds).
 
   The systems described are similarly configured in other respects.
   Although the 25Mhz system came with a 70M 18ms HD. For disk intensive
   operations this faster disk, combined with increased SMARTDRV RAM,
   caused a "multiples" increase in perceived performance, over the
   16Mhz 40M 23ms HD systems.
 
   In summary: Upgrade from 1M or 2M RAM to 4M RAM to realize a cheap
   "multiples" increase in perceived performance. Upgrade from 4M to 6M,
   8M, etc. to realize a cheap "percentage" increase in perceived
   performance along with a marked increase in capacity. Upgrade the
   harddisk to a bigger/faster model (along with an upgrade of SMARTDRV
   RAM) for a "multiples" increase in disk intensive perceived
   performance.
 
   Lacking time and resources I have emphasized "perceived performance"
   vs "tested performance ratings".
 
   hope this helps.
 
   barry
 
   usere9w9@rpiecs - OR - barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu