jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (01/16/91)
A while ago I asked the best way to arrange 8MB on a 386 for optimum compile times/program development....well, I had many mixed replies, and this in turn has prompted more questions from me.... 1. Turbo C++ can use extended and expanded memory. Which is it better at using? Is there a maximum amount that it can use? I.e. if I could configure my memory as either EMS or XMS, which would be best? 2. Would it be more efficient to use Turbo C++ giving it all the XMS that my system had, or would I actually be better off relegating it to a disk cache? (ie. is TC++ better at using XMS than a caching program?) Brian
boerner@cs.utexas.edu (Brendan B. Boerner) (01/17/91)
In article <26342@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes: >2. Would it be more efficient to use Turbo C++ giving it all the XMS that >my system had, or would I actually be better off relegating it to a disk >cache? (ie. is TC++ better at using XMS than a caching program?) Offhand I'd say that you want to try to balance between the two. If you have a write-through cache, then everytime TC++ swaps using VROOMM, you get a disk hit. If you instead gave that 512K or 1024K to TC++, then it could get by without writing. However, you still want a cache of some size to cache header files and what not (unless you have an IDE disk - I was told by Swan Tech support not to use the cache program that came with my Swan 386SX since it is meant for their customers who order non-IDE drives. He said that IDE had a 64K cache and coupled with the speed of the drive a cache was unnecessary). Brendan