Search Results

Search found 4580 results on 184 pages for 'faster'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 5/184 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Intel Pentium 4 vs. Faster Celeron

    - by Synetech inc.
    A few months ago my motherboard died, so I bought a used computer that had a 2.4GHz Celeron. My old system had a 1.7GHz Pentium 4, so now I’m trying to decide which CPU to use. Obviously a P4 is preferable over a Celeron, but the Celeron is (significantly?) faster than the P4. I’m wondering if the faster Celeron might be better for certain tasks (ie, stronger but dumber is better at some things than smarter but weaker). I tried Googling for some reviews and comparisons for graphs to get a clear depiction of which is better overall, but found nothing that helped. (I did manage to find one page that indicates (apparently by poll, not benchmark) that the Celeron is better.) So which CPU should I use? Does anyone know of some graphs that I can use to compare the two?

    Read the article

  • Need solutions in sharing a 3Mb/768Kbps DSL line to 60+ users and faster bandwidth

    - by elistp
    Two parts. Part 1: We currently have 2 DSL Lines with 3Mb/768Kbps speeds load balanced for 60+ users. Accessing the Internet is borderline unusable. The simple solution would be to get a faster DSL Line but the highest DSL package is 6Mb/768Kbps, has quite the price jump, and doesn't do anything to help with upload speeds. I'm looking for free or extremely low cost solutions (web cache, traffic shaping, bandwidth controls, etc) to help with making Internet access more bearable until the next funding year. Can anyone give any advice? Part 2: We're looking into a 4.5Mb bonded T1 in the next funding year which is of course significantly more expensive than 2 DSL lines. Are bonded T1s our only hope for faster speeds? Are there any better alternatives?

    Read the article

  • Pentium 4 Willamette vs. Faster Celeron Northwood [closed]

    - by Synetech inc.
    Which is the preferable of the following two processors? Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 1.70 GHz, 256K Cache, 400 MHz FSB Willamette Intel® Celeron® Processor 2.40 GHz, 128K Cache, 400 MHz FSB Northwood Details: A few months ago my motherboard died, so I bought a used computer that had a 2.4GHz Celeron. My old system had a 1.7GHz Pentium 4, so now I’m trying to decide which CPU to use. Obviously a P4 is preferable over a Celeron, but the Celeron is (significantly?) faster than the P4. I’m wondering if the faster Celeron might be better for certain tasks (ie, stronger but dumber is better at some things than smarter but weaker). I tried Googling for some reviews and comparisons for graphs to get a clear depiction of which is better overall, but found nothing that helped. (I did manage to find one page that indicates (apparently by poll, not benchmark) that the Celeron is better.) So which CPU should I use? Does anyone know of some graphs that I can use to compare the two? The system is a general-purpose machine for word-processing, Internet, and casual games (not Crysis, but not Solitaire either). It will be running Windows XP. The board is a 478 with 400MHz FSB.

    Read the article

  • Faster caching method

    - by pataroulis
    I have a service that provides HTML code which at some point it is not updated anymore. The code is always generated dynamically from a database with 10 million entries so each HTML code page rendering searches there for say 60 or 70 of those entries and then renders the page. So, for those expired pages, I want to use a caching system which will be VERY simple (like just enter a record with the rendered HTML and (if I need) remove it). I tried to do it file-based but the search for the existence of a file and then passing it through php to actually render it , seems like too much for what I want to do. I was thinking of doing it on mysql with a table with MEDIUMBLOBs (each page is around 100k). It would hold about 150000 such records (for now, at least). My question is: Would it be faster to let mysql do the lookup of the file and the passing to php or is the file-based approach faster? The lookup code for the file based version looks like this: $page = @file_get_contents(getCacheFilename($pageId)); if($page!=NULL) { echo $page; } else { renderAndCachePage($pageId); } which does one lookup whether it finds the file or not. The mysql table would just have an ID (the page id) and the blob entry. The disk of the system is a simple SATA raid 1 , the mysql daemon can grab up to 2.5GB of memory (i have a proxy running too, eating the rest of the 16GB of the machine. ) In general the disk is quite busy already. My not using PEAR cache, is because I think (please feel free to correct me on this) it adds overhead I do not need because the page rendering code is called about 2M times per day and I wouldn't want to go through the whole code each time (and yes, I have eaccelerator to cache the code too). Any pointer to what direction I should go, would be greatly welcome. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to make Ultra VNC viewer faster ?

    - by karthik
    I am trying to share the screen of a system A to another system B. The normal screen sharing is good. But when i run a 3-D program in System A and try to view it from System B, i see the screen frame by frame. The response time is too slow. My Req. is to show the 3-D program to another person. How can i make VNC faster, to its best ?

    Read the article

  • How to make Ultra VNC viewer faster ?

    - by karthik
    I am trying to share the screen of a system A to another system B. The normal screen sharing is good. But when i run a 3-D program in System A and try to view it from System B, i see the screen frame by frame. The response time is too slow. My Req. is to show the 3-D program to another person. How can i make VNC faster, to its best ?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible that solid state drives (or any faster drive) will make common applications faster even if they are cached?

    - by leladax
    I assumed that solid state drives are insignificant after, say, Firefox is fully brought up and no important disk activity after that is going on. However, I wonder if some kind of 'cached from the disk to the CPU' activity is going on that may make solid state drives (or any faster drive) better. Then again, I suspect that may be depended only on the Bus (or some kind of cache memory drives have). Hrm..

    Read the article

  • Faster zlib alternatives

    - by BarsMonster
    I wonder, if there are any faster builds of zlib around with more advanced optimizations? If it's possible to optimize it using SSE instructions or Intel C++ compiller, or some trick which were patented earlier (I know patents were a serious limitation during gzip/zlib development), have anyone bothered to implement that? I am especially interested in compression speed, which have a direct impact on high-performance web-services serving static & dynamic content.

    Read the article

  • Binding MySQL to run from the public or private LAN IP address - which one is faster

    - by Lamin Barrow
    So we have 2 servers all running at the same web host. We have bind MySQL to listen on the public ip-address of the database server and the web server connects to it from the public ip. Both servers run on the same private network. Currently, the DB connect method from our php script takes about 3ms to connect to the MySQL database server host. My question is, would MySql data interaction from the web server be faster if we bind it to listen on the private lan address on the database server instead of the public IP? or is it the same regardless and it wont make a different. i have moved this question to server fault http://serverfault.com/questions/438156/binding-mysql-to-run-from-the-public-or-private-lan-ip-address-which-one-is-fa

    Read the article

  • How to optimize sandboxie for faster application loading

    - by user23950
    I'm referring to this one: http://www.sandboxie.com/index.php?DownloadSandboxie Do you know of any alternatives that might be better than this software. And if you don't know of any alternative. Can you show me how can I make it faster to load firefox. Or any other browser. Because it really makes application incredibly slow at loading when you run them inside a sandbox. I've also seen lots from here: http://superuser.com/questions/57129/alternative-to-sandboxie-for-64-bit-systems Do you know of any other?

    Read the article

  • faster ( squid + apache httpd + apache tomcat )

    - by letronje
    We have a production setup where we have Squid in the front(caching images, js, css, etc) Apache httpd in the middle(prefork + mod_rewrite + mod_jk/AJP + mod_deflate + mod_php(few php pages)) Apache tomcat 5.5 at the end serving all the dynamic stuff. What would be the best way to reduce the overhead of having 3 servers in the request path ? Wondering if replacing httpd with a faster web server like nginx/lighttpd will help. httpd right now does the job of url rewriting(for clean urls) and talking to tomcat(via mod_jk) and compressing output(mod_deflate) and serving some low traffic php pages. What would be ideal replacement for httpd given that we need these features? Is there a way to replace (squid + apache) with a single entity that does caching well (like squid) for static stuff, rewrites url, compresses response and forwards dynamic stuff directly to tomcat ? heard abt varnish cache, wondering if it can help.

    Read the article

  • how to make a very large radmind image, faster

    - by Wang
    Making the new Snow Leopard radmind image* for my lab involves manipulating over 50GB of applications, including passing them over the network. Each try takes four hours or more, and if it fails there's no apparent way to pick up again from partway through. Instead I have to delete all the data (a minutes-long operation) and start over. Furthermore, one successful upload just means now I get to test whether the image works; if it doesn't, I can look forward to repeating the upload as many times as I need to troubleshoot. How can I do this faster and/or smarter?

    Read the article

  • Only some motherboards can support faster RAM?

    - by Wesley
    This is a question relating to one of my builds. Here are the specs: ECS P4VXASD2+ V5.0 motherboard Intel P4 Northwood 2.8 GHz (533 MHz FSB, 512 KB L2) 2x 1GB PC3200 DDR RAM Maxtor 300GB IDE HDD 16 MB NVIDIA TNT2 Pro AGP OKIA 300W ATX PSU Gigabyte 52x CD-ROM The issue right now is that I'm trying to install Windows XP from the CD drive but the computer randomly restarts partway through installation. My other build was BSODing due to RAM latency errors. This ECS board manual states that memory modules "up to 333 MHz" (i.e. PC2700) is supported. However, I am running PC3200 modules, which is clearly faster than PC2700. Would this be causing the computer from randomly restarting? EDIT 1: I also wanted to mention that my Emachines T2482 is actually running 2x 512MB PC3200 DDR RAM when it should only be supporting PC1600 and PC2100 DDR RAM. Yet there are no issues with it.

    Read the article

  • Always use one slow connection in preference of a "faster" one

    - by billc.cn
    In Windows, there's this automatic metric thing where the metric is selected according to the declared speed of the link. I now have a gigabit LAN routed to a 2MB DSL service and a HSDPA mobile broadband connection. The former is always chosen for Internet packets even though the latter is actually faster. I tried setting the mobile broadband's interface metric to 1 and raising its priority in the advanced settings of the adapter settings, but this does not seem to affect the metric of the default route. The default route to the Ethernet interface always have a lower metric than the mobile broadband interface. Am I missing something here?

    Read the article

  • Moving the OS X swap file to a faster drive

    - by Milky Joe
    I have a new Mac Mini that's running the latest version of Snow Leopard. The internal drive is a bit of a slouch. I'd like to move the swap file (or whatever it's called is OS X) to my faster external drive (Firewire 800, permanently connected). Is this possible? I've read that the old solutions aren't working in 10.6. My Mac has 2GB of RAM, so the swap file is used quite a bit when I'm doing intensive work (Photoshop etc).

    Read the article

  • How can I make VNC faster?

    - by NickAldwin
    I need to remotely access and use my work computer a few times a week. I want to use VNC because of the price. I've used VNC before, mostly on my own network, where it's fast. However, VNC over the internet is incredibly slow. Even at 256 colors and lower, with Aero turned off, it is unbearably slow. I recently used Ammyy Admin to connect to do something requiring a quick reaction time. Ammyy was really fast, with almost no lag, and it was running in full color with Aero on! How can I make VNC faster, like Ammyy is? I'd use Ammyy, but I would probably run into the 15hr/month limit pretty quickly. Any suggestions? [EDIT] I'm currently using UltraVNC.

    Read the article

  • SSD runs faster on Windows as compared to Linux [closed]

    - by wushugene
    Windows 7 seems to install, boot and run much smoother & faster than each the three linux distros I have recently tried (Ubuntu 12.04 unity, Linux mint 13 MATE, and Fedora 17 on gnome 3.4). Why am I facing bad performance in Linux? I have tweaked my Linux installs for the SSD (enabling trim, disabling swap, etc.) I'm using an Acer TravelMate with i5-2410m processor, intel hd 3000 graphics, 8 gigs of ram, and a 256 gb samsung 830 ssd. Edit: Boot times are 10-15 seconds slower, there is noticeable delay from login to fully loaded desktop, and in general does not appear to be as responsive as my old windows 7 install or the Linux guests I had running on it.

    Read the article

  • How can I make VNC faster?

    - by NickAldwin
    I need to remotely access and use my work computer a few times a week. I want to use VNC because of the price. I've used VNC before, mostly on my own network, where it's fast. However, VNC over the internet is incredibly slow. Even at 256 colors and lower, with Aero turned off, it is unbearably slow. I recently used Ammyy Admin to connect to do something requiring a quick reaction time. Ammyy was really fast, with almost no lag, and it was running in full color with Aero on! How can I make VNC faster, like Ammyy is? I'd use Ammyy, but I would probably run into the 15hr/month limit pretty quickly. Any suggestions? [EDIT] I'm currently using UltraVNC.

    Read the article

  • Moving windows using keyboard...faster?

    - by Alois Mahdal
    I like using keyboard shortcuts because it's faster as it does not force me to move my hands off the keyboard. In Windows I can use them to move windows around desktop: Press Alt+Space to open common windows menu Press M to choose "Move" command Navigate window position by cursor keys Confirm new position with Enter Additionally, to achieve better accuracy, I can hold Ctrl while navigating. Now the problem is that the normal "step" when moving is about 20px, and my desktop is quite large, so "walking" all the way across takes quite a long time. This kind of defeats the purpose of using keyboard for these tasks. Is it possible to change size of this step so that takes less steps to walk the same distance? (I imagine a hidden setting in Windows registry...?) I tried holding Alt while navigating, but it does not seem to have influence on speed.

    Read the article

  • Binding MySQL to run from the public or private LAN IP address - which one is faster

    - by Lamin Barrow
    So we have 2 servers all running at the same web host. We have bind MySQL to listen on the public ip-address of the database server and the web server connects to it from the public ip. Both servers run on the same private network. Currently, the DB connect method from our php script takes about 3ms to connect to the MySQL database server host. My question is, would MySql data interaction from the web server be faster if we bind it to listen on the private lan address on the database server instead of the public IP? or is it the same regardless and it wont make a different.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >