4 Responses to “v3 b484”

1. 

   Colonel ONeill
   Jan 18, 2009
   

   I also report better performance on 484. 486 caused Word to become more sluggish. 484’s application priority code was much better. Higher overall cache hit too.

   
   
2. 

   Ed
   Jan 18, 2009
   

   I found that Build 484 gives better application priority than Bild 486. I’d like more time to check one version with the other!

   
   
3. 

   geastof
   Jan 19, 2009
   

   I’ve been running 486 since the 1/17 post. I use MS Word also, and it seems to run normally. After reading your comments I ran eboostr’s speed test on Word. Here are the results:

   total direct access time: 94.92 sec
   total cached access time: 45.47 sec
   cache hits 97%

   Ratio: 2.09

   These results don’t mean much to me since I didn’t take a baseline with the prior versions. However, I run AnVir, and I can say that 486 has reduced the load on my system memory from a constant 53% usage to 34% usage.

   Also, I have been comparing all my commonly used programs memory usage both with and without eboostr running. Overall, 486 has significantly reduced the load on my system’s memory. Individual programs are using between 2 and 30 percent less memory.

   The cache statistics show the majority of programs cached at 72% – 100%.

   
   
4. 

   Andrey Zarudnev
   Jan 19, 2009
   

   The change in 486 build affects Application discovery only–all other code related to Apps Priority is actually the same as in 484 build.