[P1] new ibooks... any better re warping & screen marks??

[Joost van de Griek]

On 2003-07-08 21:28, Jack Rodgers wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 05:25  AM, Joost van de Griek wrote:
> 
>> Yes, that is what "minimum" means...
> 
> Who was it that called me picky?

Might have been me, but I'm not picky. :-P

>>> The best improvement in OS 9 is to max out your ram and turn vm off and then
>>> increase the amount of RAM devoted to an application.
>> 
>> It is usually a better idea to leave VM at the minimum setting (physical RAM
>> + 1 MB). This allows applications to leave unused parts of themselves on
>> disk, arther than in RAM. That way, you can run more applications
>> simultaneously, because your RAM is used much more efficiently. As long as
>> enough physical RAM is available, there won't be much of a slowdown.
> 
> Better vs best, my way vs your way...  :)

Of course, there are situations where it is advisable to turn off VM
completely, like the example Tom presented. But for average users/normal
use, the default settings usually work best.

> One problem with running more applications in OS X is that the more you
> have running the more files you lose when 9 freezes.

Can't comment on that. Can one even set VM in Classic? And does that setting
actually have any effect? The OS 9 install I use for Classic is so minimal
it has no Memory control panel.

My comments apply to "native" OS 9 only, as far as I'm concerned.

> Was the part of my email snipped that mentioned increasing the amount
> of allotted ram to an application to improve performance or did I post
> that in another email. Increasing an applications allotted Ram by
> 100-200% greatly improves the performance, especially if you turn of VM
> in 9 and before.

I may have snipped that. I had no vile comments on that part, because I
agree. So I didn't quote it.

,xtG
.tsooJ
-- 
who | grep -i blonde | date
cd $HOME; unzip; touch; strip; finger
mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount
sleep
-- 
Joost van de Griek
<http://www.jvdg.net/>