LOST6200

Patron
  • Content Count

    588
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About LOST6200

  • Rank
    <a href='/patron.html'><b>StorageReview Patron</b></a>
  1. Whoa, this is a blast from the past. Why are they hacking?
  2. LOST6200

    Pagefile Size Should Be >= Ram

    What is that guy smoking and what are the certain conditions? I worked with a measly 1.5 or 2GB of RAM for years in Win2K. The fixed 400MB page file never tried to increase nor were there any slowdowns. So with 4GB RAM in my current system, I should set the page file to 4GB? No way.
  3. LOST6200

    Photoshop 2gb+ Files, Need Advice

    Now you've got the idea! Sorry if I did not explain it befroe, but there was pain and hurrying. You can also understand why I like having 4GB of RAM and using half for the RAMDiks scratchdisk. Angus, I am sorry for your plight. In any occupation it is difficult having to work without the proper tools. B
  4. LOST6200

    Photoshop 2gb+ Files, Need Advice

    I also have the task of t sorking with the large PS files. First of all, PS (Windows) only sees 2GB. As ylu knows, the scratch disk is usualy teh limiting speed factor. I tried the WDG740GD and found it poor for hte scratch disk compared to a 15k.3. Maybe a stripped pair woudl be a littel beter, but the access time or command queing or something is important. A pair of the 10k WD drives would be fine for storng the PS files, however. By far, the best perfpormance results were obtaned by installing 4GB of RAM and assigng a 2GB RAM scratchdisk. The STR of the RAMDisk is unbeatable at more than 1GB/sec., and the access times are minsucle. Its the biggest speed improvement I’ve had in yeras. But really, realy, if this is work related, buy a Mac with 64-bit supprot up to 8GB. Windows PS is a BS kludge until windows reaches 64-bit status. Also you should conider a dual-CPU system. Now that my harddrives ar not a bottleneck., I wish I had more CPUs. B. (sorry for the poorwriting)
  5. Arf! The reply was premature.
  6. Some people have more money than sense Why do you say that? The 15k.3 was a great buy; the 36 GB model was relatively inexpensive. It has been in operation about 18 hours/day since November 2002, and paid for itself many times over. The 74 GB WD 10K drive was a disappointment, but I'm sure somebody will buy it for at least half the original price. Now I want to upgarde the boot drive and intsall the orifginal parts ofthe system. So its another few dollars, no biggie. I alrady spent enough on teh CPU, and lats wekk, 4Gb RAM upgrade. Now trhe system will be usable for another 8 months. B
  7. Sigh. The internal transfer rate is always much higher than the STR. Still, 100 MB/sec. STR for the 15K drive is quite possible. I'll take two MAUs if they are quiet. It is high time to ditch the damned WD740GD and the elderly 15k.3. Bettis
  8. LOST6200

    Fastest Ide 80gb Drive On The Market?

    http://www.storagereview.com/comparison.html
  9. LOST6200

    Ddr Ram Question, Asap!

    It is really rude to cry wolf and also shout with a bigfont. No answer for you.
  10. LOST6200

    Ram Upgrade

    4GB of these work just fine.
  11. LOST6200

    Ram Upgrade

    That it is, Dave.
  12. LOST6200

    Free/share Ware Image Stitching Program

    http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~dersch/
  13. LOST6200

    Wd740gd Ps Sluggard

    Regardless of the cause, there is nothing practical to be done. In Narch I will replace The WD with an IDE Seagato 200 GB. It will be no trouble finding a home for the 10K doggy drive - someone already wants it.
  14. LOST6200

    Wd740gd Ps Sluggard

    Yes. Several hours were already consumed on this issue. Three different procedures were utilized, each with n=5. In each case the %RSD5 values for both the WD 10K drive and the 15k.3 were ~1%. The variances were so small and equal that there was really no point in running ANOVA, etc.
  15. LOST6200

    Wd740gd Ps Sluggard

    Good grief. How can one define slower except in terms of time? For example, if a single operation that thrashes the scratch disk hard takes 2 minutes with one drive compared to 2.5 minutes with another drive, then the latter is slower. The issue is apparent in virtaully any operation where the scratch disk significantly exceeds the available RAM.