Will SETI benefits from Cacheman on a Windows 98SE with 512MB DDR memory?

[IsOs]

I'm still trying to get my new Athlon 1.4GHz to complete WU faster.

 

[Assimilator1]

I use cacheman too ,but since upgrading to 256Mb RAM I dunno if its still needed.

Seeing as you have such a huge amount of RAM I can't see that it'll make any difference to SETI as there will be plenty of RAM for everything!.

Anyone else?

 

[IsOs]

I;ve read somewhere else that having 512 or more of mem in Windows 98 actually makes your system inefficient. When I first try capturing in Windows 98SE with my Radeon 64MB DDR with VIVO card on a PIII 700 with 512MB of RAM, the capture video misses a lot of frames. After installing Cacheman, the capture didn't missed any frames - I'm talking full DVD resolution on MPEG-2 format.

Later tonight, I'll try Cacheman and compare with my current settings of 4 way interleave. Should I use the game settings or multimedia settings of Cacheman?

 

[Assimilator1]

To compare WU times precisely you would need to run the same WU over & over again ,2nd to that you could make sure that the WU's are the same Angle Range.That'll be near enough

I'm talking vull DVD resolution on MPEG-2
I guess that uses a helluva lot of RAM then!?

I don't know about your cacheman settings ,aren't there any tips on its website?

 

[IsOs]

For DVD & games, there are suggested settings. I haven't found one for SETI

 

[Sukhoi]

I think it's over 512 MB that the virtual memory management in 9x gets screwed up, but I may be wrong.

 

[Orange Kid]

I don't really know the program but I would try the multimedia settings.

Curt Oien has been playing with memory timings on different programs and had told me that the timings that seemed to work best with UT, were not the best for Seti. He's trying to find a happy medium I think. It sounds to me that a memory adjustment that allows lots of fast access would be the best way to go for Seti, but could hurt on other day to day apps.