#Memory Management
> For optimal rendering speed on a 486, we recommend the use > of an
extended memory manager. We have found that some > 486 computers will
render at almost twice the speed when an > extended memory manager is
being used. The need for a > memory manager for faster rendering speed is
only required > for some 486 computers. Some 486 computers have an >
extended memory manager built into the hardware.
What I'd like to know is how likely it is that a memory manager would
improve my 486/50 from Zeos — it has a built-in hardware 128K cache, but
no extended memory manager as far as I know (and HOW would I know? I'm not
even sure what question to ask Zeos tech support). How about if I post a
rendered time from one of the examples, would that give someone a better
idea?
I'm not looking for promises here, but just an estimate. I mean, if it's a
fifty-fifty chance that a memory manager would improve my rendering times,
I'll buy one tommorrow. On the other hand, if there's only a slim chance,
then it ain't worth it to me (because, other than 3DS, all I run is
Windows, and I have no problems with the memory I have). You see, I don't
quite understand HOW a memory manager would help (doesn't Phar Lap use ALL
my 32Meg memory? — on second thought, maybe I don't want to know all the
messy technical details).
And finally (will he NEVER stop?), if I SHOULD buy one, which one? Is QEMM
the general consensus?