Pentium III chips and multi-tasking

[codehead]

Hello All:

I currently have two PC's (both running NT). One is to run a 16-bit Powerbuider application (a front-end to an Oracle database) and the other is to do work while the Powerbuilder app is tying up my other PC (an HP Vectra VL 5/166). The app ties up my PC almost completely when it is doing database intensive work. I can do some work, but it is VERY slow and virtually impossible. My tech support team says that if I get a new Pentium III machine running at 800 MHZ with 256 MB of RAM that the 16-bit app won't be able to cripple it and I will be able to effectively do two or three things at once. Is this true?

TIA,

Codehead

[sig][/sig]

 

[Nostradamus]

running 16-bit application on NT is always difficult. No program I know does it well. Before throwing money on a new processor and memory try to see if you can find the program in 32-bit code.
Tuning the Oracle database is also something you should consider before purchasing new hardware. Remember that harddrive/s is one of the keys to gain performance with databases.
Run Task manager to see if your bootleneck lies in memory or processor.

I think it is a little far fetched to assume that a PIII would have instructions built-in to totally solve your problem. Of course you would gain performance with an upgrade but there are other factors in your example. Perhaps you should ask another helpdesk as well.
[sig]<p>Nostradamus<br><a href=mailto: > </a><br><a href= > </a><br> [/sig]

 

[clivo]

Correct. You will see a massive performance boost in multitasking. [sig]<p>Clive<br><a href=mailto:clive@digitalsky.co.za>clive@digitalsky.co.za</a><br><a href= > </a><br>[/sig]

 

[MasterRacker]

Nostradamus makes some good points but a 166 Mhz machine is not enough machine. NT, all by itself really needs at least 200Mhz and 64 MB of RAM to run decently. If you're actually going to run programs you need more. It's not so muuch the PIII that will help you but just the increase in speed. Also, if you're going to run multiple programs simulatanously three are 3 rules: 1) more RAM, 2) more RAM, 3) more RAM. [sig]<p> Jeff<br><a href=mailto: masterracker@hotmail.com> masterracker@hotmail.com</a><br><a href= > </a><br>If everything seems to be going well: you don't have enough information.......[/sig]

 

[kjonnnnn]

The guys are right.... NT is greedy. I have a mixed use office. I get the best performance with NT on machine 300mhz and up. [sig][/sig]

 

[Nostradamus]

Jeff is absolutely right. I saw first now that you had a 166 Mhz processor. That is far from good. I would very much suggest an upgrade (processor & memory) but keep the other things in mind as well. [sig]<p>Nostradamus<br><a href=mailto: > </a><br><a href= > </a><br> [/sig]

 

[codehead]

Hello All:

I just did the upgrade and it didn't help at all! Those 16-bit programs grab the whole processor no matter how fast it is!

Regards,

Codehead

 

[CitrixEngineer]

The speed of the processor is also subject to the overall build of the machine - motherboard components, construction, second-level cache, etc.

A 166Mhz pentium processor will run Windows NT satisfactorily, with a large second-level cache (256-512Kb) and plenty of RAM. I have run a Pentium Pro 180 for many years as a PDC to a fairly large organisation (50+ NT servers), with 512Mb RAM and a large L2 Cache.

RAM is the answer to most speed problems, as indicated by previous posts, but other &quot;tweaks&quot; can make a difference, such as the size and location of the page file, the positioning of the slider bars for various settings within NT, and the Run in Separate Memory Space checkbox, found in the properties tab for shortcuts.

Many admins have their own reasons for differing page-file settings. My preffered settings are for the initial size and the maximum size to be the same. This slows down boot and shutdown, but improves overall performance, since NT is not constantly re-sizing the page file. The page file total size should equal 2.5 X RAM + 12Mb.

The Run in Separate Memory Space checkbox is included to maximise 16-bit applications, which may consume all available resources otherwise. I believe that checking this box may help your situation.

I hope this information is useful (if a little tangential).

 

[CitrixEngineer]

Your tech support team were mistaken in suggesting that a faster processor would not be crippled by a 16-bit app. Any processor optimized for 32-bit processing may be crippled by a poorly written 16-bit application that hogs resources.

On the subject of processors, has anyone noticed that there is no intrinsic difference between a Pentium III Xeon @ 750 Mhz, with 256K L2 Cache and a Pentium III Coppermine @ 750Mhz, with 256K L2 Cache except, perhaps the price?

Other factors come into play when considering a multi-processor environment, but a dual PIII Coppermine will serve most corporate needs for a fraction of the cost of a dual PIII Xeon machine.

 

[clivo]

I agree with you regarding the Xeon / coppermine issue. After all, the both use PII core and 0.18 micronology. The only difference I can come up with (and i may be wrong), is that you can use quad setup with Xeon, but only dual setup with Coppermine.

In dual configuration, I've yet to see a test pan out differently. In fact, dual Celerons most likely offer the best value for money solution of the lot.

Clive
clive@digitalsky.co.za

 

[Voyager1]

Run in Separate Memory Space is NOT there to maximize 16-bit apps - only to protect them from each other, and to allow them to make use of multiple processors. 16-bit apps by default all run in the same NTVDM (virtual DOS machine). Run in Separate Memory Space allows 16-bit apps to exist in their own NTVDM - so when it dies (notice, I didn't say if), it will only kill it's own VDM. Multiple VDMs will also make use of multiple processors, which 16-bit apps won't do on their own.

Remember, too that a 16-bit app has a 25% larger memory footprint than the equivalent 32-bit app, due to the invocation of WOW (Win16 on Win32) and the process of &quot;thunking&quot;.

Best bet - acquire the 32-bit equivalent of the app.X-)