DEP settings: 9z-4-1

[boleary]

Peter,
you are right, I had DEP settings "Only essential Windows programs and Services".
Now I set it to "All  programs and Sercices". (Tip: include this in some kind of usermanual or Release Notes)
Furthermore, I turned the Pagefile back on (only on SSD C-drive, I disabled the rest).
As a result, My MaxSFS for MC has gone up from 116 to 184 !!

When I read the above I checked my DEP settings and changed it to "All Programs" from only "Essential Programs". Am pretty sure the default setting is "All Programs". Now my maximum MC SFS  changed from 165 to 200. However, my SC SFS went the other direction, from 20 to 2. Just an FYI.

[PeterSt]

Well, I saw you writing your own quote, and thought, ok, maybe. But I really haven't been talking about this. It's merely about the AlwaysOff (I think you can search for it) which has been adviced in here, and applied by quite some. Maybe you did too.
I never dove in what you talk about, but it will imply other things (possibly contradictionary, thinking about hat I mean is a boot setting, and that by itself implying different defaults a next time when it's on).

About the tip : quite undoable. I thought about this and at least one person in here will know what I mean. Look at my text above ... I just don't know what people all can have been doing, and this stuff for 100% sure is not about one setting only. It can very easily be about taking away 500MB of memory you ever had, and what will never come back. Not that I could find by google, people having these propblems (want to increase memory, it went the other way around, and never came back).
Therefore my tip in the release notes really was : reinstall the OS. There's too much involved, "you" are usually not to blame, but next this forum may start to be about how to repair OSes ? hmm ...

Now my maximum MC SFS  changed from 165 to 200. However, my SC SFS went the other direction, from 20 to 2.

And yes, so this can happen.
I myself didn't find a single inconsistency in things, but the difference will be that I always know what I did, investigate the further implications, and can revert. This is nothing for "you", but now what. I think I said it somewhere (release notes ?) : this can all go much further than it is now, but first people's systems must be default, so implications can be predicted. So, this will be about checking various Registry settings before proceeding, and if they don't match ... same problem. If they do match I can continue, *and* revert all when necessary. But this is all for later, *if* I should ever touch sound at all from now on ...

Lastly, I also told (again somewhere) about a very easy to apply change, but which does not imply further normal operation to be good, while the real solution is just obtaining more memory. This does (honestly) not apply to 32 bit OSes, so there it could really help (with still that downside arund the corner). This is about my own SC of 170 which easily runs. Still, if things start to behave strange, I'll again know what to do and can/will revert. This tweak too though, first requires a standard system, or at least one of which *I* know it is (which is that standard system, haha).

Ok, one other thing : please don't hesitate (anyone) to come up with these contradictions (like you just described), because it is always good to learn from (for me), and the whole lot is so complicated that I rather read something I know already with a chance for something new, than knowing nothing and possibly doing something really wrong in a next version.
I should only stop myself from giving lengthy replies like this one.

Hey, thanks.
Peter

[Eric]

Peter,
as per your advice, I upgraded my Memory today from 4GB to 8GB.
This is the huge effect on the Maximum SFS:

m    MaxSFS = 508 (from 510)
mc  MaxSFS = 264 (from 184) !
sc   MaxSFS = 210 (from 12)  !!

Thanks,
Eric

[Gerard]

*if* I should ever touch sound at all from now on ...

Please don't 

I forbid you!    

[crisnee]

Peter,
as per your advice, I upgraded my Memory today from 4GB to 8GB.
This is the huge effect on the Maximum SFS:

m    MaxSFS = 508 (from 510)
mc  MaxSFS = 264 (from 184) !
sc   MaxSFS = 210 (from 12)  !!

Hi Eric,

What are your other settings? I'm curious because I have no trouble with an MC SFS setting of 350 (I haven't tried larger) with W7 64bit and only 4GB. I've used KS adaptive and special, with and without upsampling. (My signature isn't close to correct at the moment because of all the changes and experiments--wrong computer, dac settings etc.)

With my values I don't see any point in upgrading memory unless I'm missing something (Peter?). Also, I don't understand why you should need 8GB to get a smaller SFS than I get with 4GB. Just trying to understand this memory allocation/SFS thing. 

Chris

[PeterSt]

I didn't read it back, but I hope I said something like

- everything can have happened to your PC why it doesn't "is" as should. "Is" is merely OS impeeded behaviour on combinations of settings (not too many to explain, but too difficult to control well).

- everything could have happened to your PC which makes available more memory to you (tweak that, and you will loose it).

- Things can work counter productive on SC (and MC as well, but less).

- Things can work super productive, and what XX does, is assuming the normal situation for this.

- There is no sense in starting to tweak back (what the heck all happened ?) as there is no way to revert to absolute "zero" (standard).

And you YMMV all around. So :

Eric will have something that is not right, but can be solved by adding memory.

You may have gained on an additional tweak without notice (which I apply also, but can only work on a first normal system).
or ... what you have is normal, while my system already is not.

What I really want to say is that there's no head or tail, and even OS versions influence. Do you have a problem ? just buy more memory. Cheaper than my typing without result anyway. Ok, your reading.
Sadly, this only accounts for 64 bit OS versions. So, only those with 32 bit *can* benefit from some tweaks (not hard) (not having otyher opportunities), with the danger of the PC behaving bad after that.

What did you learn ? nothing.
Why don't I explain it all ? because already now people don't know what to do, and this is after one or two of these tweaks being explained in the past, and applied without notice and knowing. And by now : without even knowing you did it. Who is "you" ? I don't know.

Peter


PS: You see, right out of the blue someone tells "I have switched on by paging file" (some post yesterday). This, while it is the advice already, nobody telling it's not on, but posting questions in the mean time. There is NO WAY to deal with this for me. That you want to understand is good and respected. But next others will start tweaking.
And no, we are not starting up private emails as well (undoubtedly by 20 people or more).

[crisnee]

Peter, I'm not quite sure what all you meant and if you were even replying to me, but after trying to understand what you're saying and thinking about it, one thing seems clear. We, the users of XX should use XX on a clean basic system (no registry, memory or esoteric tweaks) to have any chance of helping you understand what's going on and therefore helping us understand.

To remedy the situation (ok perhaps I'm being a bit over optimistic) I suggest another stickie, called something like "Must read for everybody and tweakers in particular."

It would say something like:
-------------------------------------------------
1. Do not ask me for help or make comments about the sound/performance of XX unless you're running it on an untweaked system.
2. If you truly feel you've discovered some wonderful thing while running XX on a tweaked system, please list every tweak you've implemented in detail and everything you're doing before and while you're using XX.
3. If you like to tweak and want help XX grow, run parallel same OS's (dual boot) one plain vanilla and the other tweaked to the gills if you like.

The reason for the above rules is that when a system is tweaked it introduces many new variables when we already have far too many. Now it makes my responses virtually worthless, as opposed to only somewhat worthless. haha. That's you laughing Peter.
-----------------------------------------------------

There are probably other things to add like what constitutes a tweak as opposed to a change in basic function, etc. Whatever, I should help some in your understanding the feedback you get and it would also help us, the forum readers since the posts would be more relevant and applicable for all of us. Also, your replies could be significantly shorter and to the point.

It might also be good to have a special area for tweaker posts so that they're not mixed with the "regular" stuff.

Just a thought that makes sense to me, hope it makes sense to you.

Chris