32GB RAM being maxed out and page file going crazy on SSD; Get a dedicated HDD?


Recommended Posts

what is the motherboard and how much RAM will it support? i agree w/ the others: RAM is cheap; just throw more at the problem.

 

Also, if your pagefile is that large, i'd get another SSD for it. Also, have you tried manually limiting the size?

Hello,

what is the motherboard and how much RAM will it support? i agree w/ the others: RAM is cheap; just throw more at the problem.

Mixing different RAM brands, it comes out to 304 euros to reach 64GB. That aint too cheap...

 

Also, if your pagefile is that large, i'd get another SSD for it. Also, have you tried manually limiting the size?

Its not about large, its about destroying the SSD. And if I limit the size of the page file (0 basically) then what?

Hello,

Mixing different RAM brands, it comes out to 304 euros to reach 64GB. That aint too cheap...

 

Its not about large, its about destroying the SSD. And if I limit the size of the page file (0 basically) then what?

It sounds like this is being used in a business environment. Are you using enterprise rated high endurance SSDs? If so, I don't think you'll need to be concerned about the writes... You'll have high endurance drives in a proper redundancy configuration and swap them out as soon as the warranties expire or they fail with minimal impact.

 

I would also dig into the RAM usage and potential swapping that is occurring to get a better idea of what is really occurring. Is it caching? Is it the system constantly being paged out and limiting the application RAM usage would solve the problem? Is there an upper bound? Meaning will the app just consume all of the RAM in the box and keep you in a constant paging scenario no matter how much RAM is in the box?

 

Either way, you want the page file on the fastest disk for obvious reasons. So I wouldn't move it to a HDD...

are you buying 32GB more or a completely new 64GB set? What's the RAM in there now, and what are you buying? Just curious.

 

People tend to overestimate the wear-and-tear thing w/ SSDs. It takes GBs per day for years to destroy the cells. SSDs have wear protection and whatnot to compensate.

 

 

SAS and SATA are compatible right? Just need a adapter for the connector

Ill problably look for a no name 15K HDD.

You can use SATA drives on SAS controllers without any problems but not the reverse.

Hello,

It sounds like this is being used in a business environment. Are you using enterprise rated high endurance SSDs?

No, because due to the nature of the build (overclocked) it served no purpose to the price budget to by enterprise SSDs. It would shoot the budget up way too much and nothing is even saved or stored on this SSD. The only problem is that, when used, the SSD page file is huge.

 

I would also dig into the RAM usage and potential swapping that is occurring to get a better idea of what is really occurring. Is it caching? Is it the system constantly being paged out and limiting the application RAM usage would solve the problem? Is there an upper bound? Meaning will the app just consume all of the RAM in the box and keep you in a constant paging scenario no matter how much RAM is in the box?

There is no boundary in Windows or the program. It simply maxes out when running various simulations.

 

Either way, you want the page file on the fastest disk for obvious reasons. So I wouldn't move it to a HDD...

OK then :) Ill get a short and small 64GB Sandisk SSD that I saw for 50 euros. If it gets trashed early, doesnt really matter.

 

 

are you buying 32GB more or a completely new 64GB set? What's the RAM in there now, and what are you buying? Just curious.

 

People tend to overestimate the wear-and-tear thing w/ SSDs. It takes GBs per day for years to destroy the cells. SSDs have wear protection and whatnot to compensate.

We are going to put 4 * 4GB (16GB) to bring it to 48GB. Communication was changed thruout the day but thats what is gonna be done.

 

 

You can use SATA drives on SAS controllers without any problems but not the reverse.

Understood.

Hello,

No, because due to the nature of the build (overclocked) it served no purpose to the price budget to by enterprise SSDs. It would shoot the budget up way too much and nothing is even saved or stored on this SSD. The only problem is that, when used, the SSD page file is huge.

 

There is no boundary in Windows or the program. It simply maxes out when running various simulations.

 

OK then :) Ill get a short and small 64GB Sandisk SSD that I saw for 50 euros. If it gets trashed early, doesnt really matter.

 

 

We are going to put 4 * 4GB (16GB) to bring it to 48GB. Communication was changed thruout the day but thats what is gonna be done.

 

 

Understood.

Maybe I am confused... What problem is being solved here?

 

What does overclocking have to do with what SSD you use? Also, what are you trying to actually solve? Is it just the space that the page file is using? As if it is a space issue then it appears to be an issue of right sizing your drive choice. But then I would argue to put a regular HDD in for the server and then run SSD sensitive applications from the SSD.

 

But I'm not sure I understand the core problem you're solving here. It seems like you saw the page file being large and then decided to spend money because the file is big... As if you don't care about the SSD wearing out then why not just leave it alone and let the current one wear out when it does? I hope you're not using any drive SSD or otherwise without proper backups in place to withstand a drive failure...

Hello,

Maybe I am confused... What problem is being solved here?

 

What does overclocking have to do with what SSD you use?

I mentioned it because its not worth buying less expensive but with a range of overclocking ability and then spend a lot more on a enterprise grade SSD.

 

Also, what are you trying to actually solve?

What I am trying to solve is that there is no wear-and-tear on the system SSD.

 

I hope you're not using any drive SSD or otherwise without proper backups in place to withstand a drive failure...

Drive failure is irrelevent. Nothing is stored.

I just dont want that SSD that can last 3 years, last 1 because of page file destroying it.

Im about to make the order for the Ultra Plus 64GB SSD so you just stopped me! :laugh: Any comments?

Hello,

I mentioned it because its not worth buying less expensive but with a range of overclocking ability and then spend a lot more on a enterprise grade SSD.

 

What I am trying to solve is that there is no wear-and-tear on the system SSD.

 

Drive failure is irrelevent. Nothing is stored.

I just dont want that SSD that can last 3 years, last 1 because of page file destroying it.

Im about to make the order for the Ultra Plus 64GB SSD so you just stopped me! :laugh: Any comments?

This is what I don't understand though... Why does the wear on the system SSD matter?

 

For a business environment you shouldn't be using anything past the warranty period. If you manage to wear the system SSD out from writes in 3 months then you would be able to use the warranty to replace it... It seems like you have a solution in search of a problem.

 

You should be able to handle a system drive failure...

Hello,

This is what I don't understand though... Why does the wear on the system SSD matter?

Downtime; Nothing more, nothing less.

For a business environment you shouldn't be using anything past the warranty period. If you manage to wear the system SSD out from writes in 3 months then you would be able to use the warranty to replace it... It seems like you have a solution in search of a problem.

 

You should be able to handle a system drive failure...

Lets say it does wear out in 3 months; Wouldnt buying a dedicated SSD JUST for the page file increase that wear out to a year (example) even though the page file SSD would wear out too in 3 months; The difference is that I can keep working.

Hello,

Downtime; Nothing more, nothing less.

Lets say it does wear out in 3 months; Wouldnt buying a dedicated SSD JUST for the page file increase that wear out to a year (example) even though the page file SSD would wear out too in 3 months; The difference is that I can keep working.

You still have the problem of downtime at some point in your example. It doesn't matter if it happens in 1 year or in 10 minutes... If downtime is an issue then you need to mitigate it appropriately... Adding another SSD to absorb wear doesn't mitigate against downtime. Instead you're hoping you're kicking the can down the road.

 

I would recommend you appropriately mitigate against downtime due to a drive failure and ignore the wear level of the SSD.

Hello,

You still have the problem of downtime at some point in your example. It doesn't matter if it happens in 1 year or in 10 minutes... If downtime is an issue then you need to mitigate it appropriately... Adding another SSD to absorb wear doesn't mitigate against downtime. Instead you're hoping you're kicking the can down the road.

 

I would recommend you appropriately mitigate against downtime due to a drive failure and ignore the wear level of the SSD.

Downtime? What downtime would there be?

Without a second drive - Turn off the PC, replace the drive, turn on the PC, reinstall/reimage.

With a second drive - Replace the drive.

Hello,

Downtime? What downtime would there be?

Without a second drive - Turn off the PC, replace the drive, turn on the PC, reinstall/reimage.

With a second drive - Replace the drive.

This is assuming the drive that fails is the second drive... If the system SSD fails you're still back at square one...

Hello,

This is assuming the drive that fails is the second drive... If the system SSD fails you're still back at square one...

Well, we can also assume that it is more likely that the first (system) drive does not fail before the second (page file) drive fails. Especially if the second one is a worst brand and/or worst model.

We can also assume that lighting might strike twice and everythings gets fried :laugh:

Hello,

Well, we can also assume that it is more likely that the first (system) drive does not fail before the second (page file) drive fails. Especially if the second one is a worst brand and/or worst model.

We can also assume that lighting might strike twice and everythings gets fried :laugh:

My point is simple. If your risk is downtime then you need to mitigate that risk...

 

You're shooting wild with no idea what your target is. This is a problem. You're going to make bad decisions as a result.

 

I would do some reading on how people mitigate downtime risk in computing. The most straightforward way is redundancy. It is for this reason that you'll typically see a server booting its OS from a RAID 1 volume.

Hello,

My point is simple. If your risk is downtime then you need to mitigate that risk...

 

You're shooting wild with no idea what your target is. This is a problem. You're going to make bad decisions as a result.

 

I would do some reading on how people mitigate downtime risk in computing. The most straightforward way is redundancy. It is for this reason that you'll typically see a server booting its OS from a RAID 1 volume.

Your point is basically wasting money on one machine that is used by 3-4 people, where there is NO data stored at all, that can suffer downtime (because it isnt important) but we dont want ONE component to be wasted.

You are looking way past the thread's subject, LogicalApex. If this machine was more important, I agree RAID1ing it would be a good idea. Plus, the downtime, with just one drive, would mostly affect me because I would be the one that has to reinstall and everything.

I do have to make a image of the machine ASAP.

Why would I limit the memory? This PC is only and exclusivally used as a terminal server for this program. It does absolutely nothing else. Limiting its RAM would be waste of components/money.

I want to point out that even with 32GB and paging like crazy, performance is still awesome.

BTW, it seems my company has had second thoughts about price to RAM ratio :laugh: We are gonna upgrade it to 40GB (4*8GB (32GB, quad) + 2*4GB (8GB, dual) )

I think you are missing the point of what limiting application RAM is for. I have a large SQL Server which has 128GB of RAM and houses TB's of data across Ten's of disks but we limit the SQL Server RAM software memory usage to 100 GB of RAM... You need RAM that is dedicated to the OS, once the OS runs of out free ram, you will have OS performance slow downs. This is just to guarantee that windows has enough free memory just to manage itself. This is a dedicated SQL Server, and we never have issues with speed or RAM because of thinking about limits of what can have what memory wise.. it's in no way limiting the server's usage.. it's not a waste of money because the OS still uses the RAM, that's why you have to calculate out what the OS needs vs what the software needs... which is also why high end software that does a lot of in memory caching and storage have limiters like this in place

Hello,

I think you are missing the point of what limiting application RAM is for. I have a large SQL Server which has 128GB of RAM and houses TB's of data across Ten's of disks but we limit the SQL Server RAM software memory usage to 100 GB of RAM... You need RAM that is dedicated to the OS, once the OS runs of out free ram, you will have OS performance slow downs. This is just to guarantee that windows has enough free memory just to manage itself. This is a dedicated SQL Server, and we never have issues with speed or RAM because of thinking about limits of what can have what memory wise.. it's in no way limiting the server's usage.. it's not a waste of money because the OS still uses the RAM, that's why you have to calculate out what the OS needs vs what the software needs... which is also why high end software that does a lot of in memory caching and storage have limiters like this in place

Well, then I think you are missing the point of what this PC does!

You have a large SQL server with a lot of RAM and a lot of disks that have a lot of data

I have a small overclocked PC with (compared to that) a medium amount of RAM and one disk with no data (only Windows and that program I mentioned before)

Im sorry if I dont understand you but I just dont see how your scenario compares to mine. Maybe Im missing something.

Hello,

Your point is basically wasting money on one machine that is used by 3-4 people, where there is NO data stored at all, that can suffer downtime (because it isnt important) but we dont want ONE component to be wasted.

You are looking way past the thread's subject, LogicalApex. If this machine was more important, I agree RAID1ing it would be a good idea. Plus, the downtime, with just one drive, would mostly affect me because I would be the one that has to reinstall and everything.

I do have to make a image of the machine ASAP.

If this is the case then I fail to understand why you're adding another SSD just for a page file... It seems you're wasting components and money...

riahc3, you appear to be purposefully confusing various aspects of a system's configuration in hopes that we just agree to your original question.

 

It is also clear to me that you do not understand how the various hardware components of a Windows PC actually interact with each other; and you have yet to respond with the types of memory consumption configurations the SolidWorks software provides.

 

Bottom line: You need to *reconfigure* your existing system.  The general consensus is that you do not need another disk drive.

Hello,

Well, then I think you are missing the point of what this PC does!

You have a large SQL server with a lot of RAM and a lot of disks that have a lot of data

I have a small overclocked PC with (compared to that) a medium amount of RAM and one disk with no data (only Windows and that program I mentioned before)

Im sorry if I dont understand you but I just dont see how your scenario compares to mine. Maybe Im missing something.

no, I'm not missing the point... the point is no mater what you need to dedicate some RAM to the Host OS... doesn't mater if its SQL Server or software like this. You are complaining about over paging, I'm trying to tell you how to stop it by managing your RAM, actual memory management not what windows does to dynamically manage it... if you force it to use a range of RAM it should never page out, because it will never use past that amount of RAM

Hello,

If this is the case then I fail to understand why you're adding another SSD just for a page file... It seems you're wasting components and money...

Well, then the solution would be to add more RAM. We are doing this already (not to the full extent because of costs) but as a "cost cutter" a SSD also helps, right?

 

 

riahc3, you appear to be purposefully confusing various aspects of a system's configuration in hopes that we just agree to your original question.

 

It is also clear to me that you do not understand how the various hardware components of a Windows PC actually interact with each other; and you have yet to respond with the types of memory consumption configurations the SolidWorks software provides.

 

Bottom line: You need to *reconfigure* your existing system.  The general consensus is that you do not need another disk drive.

Your post has reminded me of a essay generator.

Basically you read nothing from the thread, did no research into the software in question and read no replies. Thats what it seems to be at least.

Like I (and others mention) the program grows beyond a 32GB RAM and into a 40GB+ page file. This means it is consuming 72GB (not of raw RAM because like mentioned the RAM unloads chunk to the page file) I need to "reconfigure" my system is pretty obvious; We start with adding more RAM but because it would explode the budget, we take a cost cutting route of adding a SSD.

 

 

no, I'm not missing the point... the point is no mater what you need to dedicate some RAM to the Host OS... doesn't mater if its SQL Server or software like this. You are complaining about over paging, I'm trying to tell you how to stop it by managing your RAM, actual memory management not what windows does to dynamically manage it... if you force it to use a range of RAM it should never page out, because it will never use past that amount of RAM

OK, thats maybe what Im not understanding; Why would I say "limit yourself to 32GB"? Are you saying this to avoid the SSD paging at a cost of performance? Is that what you mean?

If so, I think 50 bucks vs limiting performance is worth it, personally. Let me see if I understood you correctly then Ill continue :)

BTW, thank you all for your advice and opinions. They help me a lot think about the problem :)

riahc3, on 06 Mar 2014 - 13:32, said:riahc3, on 06 Mar 2014 - 13:32, said:riahc3, on 06 Mar 2014 - 13:32, said:

Basically you read nothing from the thread, did no research into the software in question and read no replies. Thats what it seems to be at least.

Like I (and others mention) the program grows beyond a 32GB RAM and into a 40GB+ page file. This means it is consuming 72GB (not of raw RAM because like mentioned the RAM unloads chunk to the page file) I need to "reconfigure" my system is pretty obvious; We start with adding more RAM but because it would explode the budget, we take a cost cutting route of adding a SSD.

I actually read up on the entire 3 pages of responses before stating what I said.  Also, I'm also casually familiar with SolidWorks -- I've just never ran into the types of problem that you're describing.

 

There are parallels between SQL Server's memory management capabilities and those that (presumably exist) in SolidWorks.  Left unchecked (read: misconfigured) then the software would naturally consume as many resources as is made available to it via the OS.  Any program that hits the limits of its operating environment begins to error out or experience severe performance bottlenecks.  In the case of SolidWorks, it seems to defer those responsibilities to the OS -- hence how it consumes an ever-increasing amount of memory.  (The program does not know the difference between physical and virtual memory [page file].  It only knows that space is available.)

 

You can spend $5000 on more RAM, but SolidWorks will keep consuming as much memory as is available until it feels satisfied.

 

Your thoughts are either, "wow this program is hungry" or "wow I should really configure my SolidWorks environment properly."  I cannot speak for your business needs for SolidWorks over other CAD software, but I can speak to the idea that you must *really* dig into how SolidWorks is configured, review all of its configuration settings (both presented in the GUI and hidden in configuration files), and make sure you place a hard limit on how many resources the overall program is allowed to consume.  (You should also coordinate with SolidWorks directly if such a setting is too obscure... you may get a patch from them to fix the memory leak, or simply upgrade/downgrade to a version that operates properly within your given environment.)

 

Bottom line: Throwing more hardware at a software problem does not fix the software configuration problem.

Hello,

Well, then the solution would be to add more RAM. We are doing this already (not to the full extent because of costs) but as a "cost cutter" a SSD also helps, right?

 

 

Your post has reminded me of a essay generator.

Basically you read nothing from the thread, did no research into the software in question and read no replies. Thats what it seems to be at least.

Like I (and others mention) the program grows beyond a 32GB RAM and into a 40GB+ page file. This means it is consuming 72GB (not of raw RAM because like mentioned the RAM unloads chunk to the page file) I need to "reconfigure" my system is pretty obvious; We start with adding more RAM but because it would explode the budget, we take a cost cutting route of adding a SSD.

 

 

OK, thats maybe what Im not understanding; Why would I say "limit yourself to 32GB"? Are you saying this to avoid the SSD paging at a cost of performance? Is that what you mean?

If so, I think 50 bucks vs limiting performance is worth it, personally. Let me see if I understood you correctly then Ill continue :)

BTW, thank you all for your advice and opinions. They help me a lot think about the problem :)

any time you have to page out, you hurt performance anyways... anything that isn't direct memory access is slower, even if it is to an SSD... the way to solve the problem is either get more RAM (which by best practice you should still limit the app's memory usage, even with 1TB of RAM you should still have a MAX usage for the program just so the OS doesn't start paging out itself)... or use the amount you have now, and put the limiter in place and stop paging out excessively

Hello,

I actually read up on the entire 3 pages of responses before stating what I said.  Also, I'm also casually familiar with SolidWorks -- I've just never ran into the types of problem that you're describing.

 

There are parallels between SQL Server's memory management capabilities and those that (presumably exist) in SolidWorks.  Left unchecked (read: misconfigured) then the software would naturally consume as many resources as is made available to it via the OS.  Any program that hits the limits of its operating environment begins to error out or experience severe performance bottlenecks.  In the case of SolidWorks, it seems to defer those responsibilities to the OS -- hence how it consumes an ever-increasing amount of memory.  (The program does not know the difference between physical and virtual memory [page file].  It only knows that space is available.)

 

You can spend $5000 on more RAM, but SolidWorks will keep consuming as much memory as is available until it feels satisfied.

 

Your thoughts are either, "wow this program is hungry" or "wow I should really configure my SolidWorks environment properly."  I cannot speak for your business needs for SolidWorks over other CAD software, but I can speak to the idea that you must *really* dig into how SolidWorks is configured, review all of its configuration settings (both presented in the GUI and hidden in configuration files), and make sure you place a hard limit on how many resources the overall program is allowed to consume.  (You should also coordinate with SolidWorks directly if such a setting is too obscure... you may get a patch from them to fix the memory leak, or simply upgrade/downgrade to a version that operates properly within your given environment.)

 

Bottom line: Throwing more hardware at a software problem does not fix the software configuration problem.

Now this is a way better post! :)

I personally just do IT; I dont work with Solidworks and didnt even see it till about 6 months ago. When building this machine which was geared towards it, I read about softtweaks but since I didnt understand what my collegues need or want (and of course, I dont know or care what the program does), I went a hardware route. Maybe this would be a good time for software tweaks like you mentioned.

Well, since most of you are bent on limiting the program's RAM, I guess when we do this (upgrade the RAM) Ill go ahead and limit it. I gotta read on how to optimize it for Simulation AND also if it affects my collegues' needs.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!