Hope someone can answer this...I have these 2 PC's, and one is faster than the other when working in Poser. WAAAY faster... Why is my Pentium II 350mhz (running Windows 2000) with only 192MB of RAM at least TWICE as fast as my AMD K6-2 500Mhz system (running Win98 SE) with 256MB of RAM? I don't get it... the AMD even has a faster system bus (200Mhz as opposed to the Pentium's 100Mhz). Is it the OS? That's the only thing I can think of. Both hard drives are 7200rpm and relatively clutter-free, and constantly defragged/optimized. This is bugging me to no end - especially since I paid for the AMD and got the 350 for free. Thanks for any clues to solving this mystery!

I only have a partial answer, but Win98 will only allow any one program to access 128 meg of RAM so the extra 64 meg of RAM you're getting on the slower machine is part of the difference.

Check the use of the "swap" files ...(i.e., size and location on the HD).

The faster (i.e, slower Poser) machine probably has less OS overhead.

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Well, they both have about 15GB of free space. But you're right, could be the swap files. Also, Ajax if that's the case, I might just go to Win2k across the board, as it does seem a lot faster in other apps and Explorer. Thanks!!

Windows 98 is junk.

Yep, it's the case alright. There's quite a lot of doco around on it, though I couldn't point you to any. One of the DAZ tech tips mentions it I think. It has something to do with the win9x kernel. I use a dual boot. I would just go to Win2k but I can't find the right drivers for my modem and soundcard (It would help a lot if I knew what modem and soundcard I actually have).

Man Ajax, that is exactly my situation. You don't have a HP Pavilion by chance, do you? I tried and tried to get my modem/soundcard combo to work with W2K, but no luck. So I dual boot.

Nah, I have a custom built thing. I know they gave me the boxes for all of the parts when I got it made, but if I kept the boxes then I don't know where I put them. The shop could probably tell me what they used, but it was a year and a half ago so they may not remember. All the same, I should check it out sometime.

Hey all, Ryan from DAZ Tech here. Here's the quote from the techtips, plus it's been updated with a workaround for those that don't want to upgrade. Good ol' Windoze. A problem does arise for those users with Win 98 or ME. The kernel that these programs use will not allocate the needed memory in one block for poser to render. This is especially a problem with large files like high resolution maps and or high resolution geometries. So even if you have 512mb of RAM, if you are running on either of these operating systems it is like running on 128mb of RAM as far as Poser is concerned. Besides upgrading your system to an NT kernel such as Win2K,or XP, we are still looking for reliable fixes. One solution that has worked for our customers is a memory utility called Cacheman by Outer Technologies which will allow you to configure your machine. You can download Cacheman here, they ask for a $10 registration fee on the honor system. Be nice, support independent developers! http://www.outertech.com/product.php?product=3&PHPSESSID=1a926c8fdb8ab6745b23d1db28f9777b I run ME at home on 256Megs, I've been playing around with Cacheman this weekend and it seems to help a lot. Anywhoo, drop me a line if you've got any more questions. tech@daz3d.com

Tech DazRaVa- I too have the Casheman, I can do bigger renders, only once has it failed. But I notice now poser takes longer to load yo stuff. ? Wins 982nd E. 511 Rams of memory.

cacheman has a bunch of settings on it. I can't remember the name now (I'm at work) but I know one setting will control how fast programs load etc.. by increasing/decrease a ram cache or read ahead... again this is all from memory, but I can check again tonight Ryan

Hey thanks! I've decided I'm gonna go to Win2k, every system I've installed it on with just Poser is flying! I will check out Cacheman too, thanks for the tip Ryan! --Donnie

Hi Rayan, I have Cacheman too because i know this german guy thomas reiman . well i didn't install cacheman anymore because i didn't use poser at this time and nothing brought down my memory. I'm running win ME and I have 784 MB ram but if I use poser it goes down to 0 if i'm rendering. now the new version looks different and I guess there must be a better cache settings like the older version 3.80. did you figured out yet how i change this in the best way. I really appreciate you tech help :)) Thanks alot for this :)) Marcabros

BTW: I have win2k too and i installed this either but i got problems to run PS or PSP on win2k. shit windoof like we say in german.......nothing is stable enough and i'm thinking to change to Linux :))

Well well I installed Cacheman again and it is amazing how this proggie handle the cache. My memory doesn't goes anymore so much down and after the render it jumps up to the normal. It's a must have for everybody :))

Ryan: I read this post a few days ago and tried to refer a few people using 98/ME on the poser forum having memory problems to your thread on this post regarding cacheman. I haven't had the problem as I'm using XP, but it would be nice that they can have something that works. - Thanks for the info.

No problem ^_^. But I really can't take all the credit. So a big thanks to Michael Dugas for the help!