Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
1995
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 1995

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Best Windows for Mma 2.2.2????

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg2121] Re: Best Windows for Mma 2.2.2????
  • From: skyluke at mbox.vol.it (LUCA SPECCHIO)
  • Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 01:54:21 -0400
  • Organization: Video On Line

purswell at netplus.net (Jerry P. Purswell) wrote:

>I am still running Mma (ver 2.2.2 enhanced)  under Windows 3.1. Does anyone 
>out there have comparisons of Mma under the different versions of Windows 
>(Win 3.1, WfW 3.1, Win 95) ?

>I've been thinking about upgrading to WfW to get 32 bit file access but I 
>am not sure that this will improve Mma's performance since (I think) Mma 
>already uses the Win32s to get a 32 bit kernal.  (Mma is by far my most 
>demanding app). 
I'm using Mma ver 2.2.0 enhanced, but you should know if ur ver has a
Win 32s kernel or not, simply looking at Windows: do you have win32s
installed ?? However WfW is quite 50% faster than WIn in handling
files with 32 bit file access; so, cause Mma uses a lot file swapping
(unless you have > 16 MB RAM), WfW helps Mma to do rhings faster.

>With regard to Windows 95 - I've heard from someone at WRI that Mma may 
>actually run more slowly under Win 95 since Win 95 requires so much memory. 
yep, Win95 needs more memory; we can say that generally you need 4 MB
extra to do the same things you did with WfW. And, in my opinion,
Win95 is also slow with 32-bit native (Win32) apps cause it has yet a
16 bit kernel files; for sure, with the same RAM (that's to say 12 MB
at least) Win NT 3.51 is very faster in running 32 bit apps.
But under Win95 you have some advantages in confront of WfW:
1.  no resources limitation (Mma can do how many graphics Postscript
outputs you want!)
2.  no swapping file limitation: Mma see ALWAYS all the memory FREE,
that's to say you never get "Not enough memory, the kernel quits"
memory
3. 32bit integrated cache file system is faster than the WfW one.

4. support for Win32 is integrated in Win95; that's a slight advantage
cause, anyway, OS needs to load all the 32bit DLL's to make 32bit Mma
kernel run.

5. support for long filenames, but in ver that I have Mma FE is a
16bit app, so id doesnt recognizes them.

>Any advertursome souls out there who have actually tried out Mma with two or 
>more of the Windows versions? 
that's all, I think; if I can give you a piece of advice I would tell
you to get WfW and wait for Mma ver 3.0 to go under Win95.
I hope I could help you.

>Thanks in advance for any feedback - JP








  • Prev by Date: Re: Troubles with Windows 95
  • Next by Date: Re: Converting table to a number?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Best Windows for Mma 2.2.2????
  • Next by thread: Re: Best Windows for Mma 2.2.2????