| Message |
Thanks Bill. A lot of good info for someone who 'has no time' to deal with it (in detail).
-On the 32bit app idea, yeah, it's starting to gel in my head... Does the 4GB limitation apply to paging file size as well? For example, AV (and other 32 bit apps) can deal with a sum total of 4GB of memory, whether that's RAM or 'virtual memory'/paging file. My guess is the sum total. If that's so there might not be any need to use a paging file, no?, particularly if one had, say a little over 4GB of RAM, say 6GB...
-the 32-bit addresses idea - I think I kind of get that as well. In general, 32 bits can represent a finite, limited number - like the 256 colors in an 8 bit(?) scheme... More bits, larger number, more 'addresses' at which, through which, to access data, or something...
-Kind of get the single-thread, single processor idea...
-And again on paging files - my thinking was originally informed probably by an article or 2 that was out-dated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like, theoretically, if the app is 32 bits it can only deal with a max of 4GB, and if you have 4GB+ RAM, you shouldn't be using a paging file, as in the file that puts data on the hard disk rather than just in the RAM... I don't really understand why the taskmanager shows paging file stats when I've disabled paging file, unless it sort of thinks of paging like, 'this is the data that would be paged if there were a paging file, but there isn't, so I'll report stats about the pseudo-paged data that are really just loaded in the system's RAM'...
-Drawing speeds and graphics cards - yes, that's what I thought. I bought a separate graphics card/video card that supposedly deals with graphics on its own - has its own memory, processor, whatever...
-OS chooses the processor... I guess that's good to know. That one article said AV chooses the processor though. Doesn't make much difference to me. There's some choosing going on - probably better that the OS does it, like there's some coordination going on, rather than AV taking over the computer (like it did in the 'old' days with a single processor)...
-'...improved disk access speeds...' Hmm, does this have to do with the quality/performance of the hard disk drive/s? For example, I only have one hard drive and I was thinking about getting another for various reasons. And in my looking into it, I find that some drives are more for performance, while others are more for power consumption, et al. My current drive has a 16MB buffer, while other higher performance ones have 32MB buffers, for instance. Are these sorts of things relevant to 'disk access speeds'? What about a 'RAID0' configuration? Might that improve AV performance?
-on improved performance on 64 bit machines - there I was sort of thinking that Vista or whatever OS geared for a 64bit machine 'configures' the 'machine' better overall, and that maybe as such AV might work better... For example, under XP 32 bit on my 64 bit machine, I noticed that I have 'a bunch' of ... 'Intel' memory-processor-chipset sort of devices that simply do not install, whereas they do under the 64 bit Vista OS... At one point I was thinking that that was why AV could use only 1 of the 8 processors (note: I have no real clue what '8 processors' means in my system; why not have 8 or however many simply acting like 1 giant super processor?). Now I see that that's not the issue. Basically, under Vista 64 I was thinking that the processors and 'stuff' work better together and so AV using only one processor still might work better. Something like that.
Don't stress out about answering my questions. If you can (in terms of time, effort, not ability), please do. If not I won't be astonished, depressed. I realize I'm throwing a lot of 'stuff' out in the air here... Thanks. |