Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:53:11 04/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2000 at 19:39:44, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On April 12, 2000 at 18:32:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 12, 2000 at 16:41:20, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On April 12, 2000 at 14:57:42, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >>> >>>>Shopping for a computer at Gateway (they custom configure). He suggested that >>>>since windows 95 supported only 128 meg ram I was wasting money on requesting >> ^^^^^^^^^^ >> ^^^^^^^^^^ >> ^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> >> >>>>256. I told him my apps software (chess programs, fritz etc) could use for sure >>>>up to 184 meg ram on my current configured computer with 256 meg ram. This >>>>value is what fritzy will setup when i tell it to play full strength. Is he >>>>right ? is anything over 128 meg ram of little or no value because of windows ? >>>>Even so is performance significantly improved by goiong to 256 meg ram ? >>>>Thanks >>> >>>This is BS. >>> >>>I have several friends with more than 128MB RAM and they use Win98 and it works >>>just fine. I don't know what the Gateway guy has been smoking. >> >>Since you like to do this to me, I thought you might like to have someone >>point out that you didn't read the post carefully. He said "windows 95". >>You answered with a response about "windows 98". What do the two have to do >>with each other. > >This is a little silly. If you don't know what they have to do with each other, >you shouldn't be teaching CS. > >I used Win95 for about 2 weeks with 192MB RAM. It worked just fine. I admit that >it wasn't OSR1 and I didn't run any special memory tests, but the memory got >reported just fine in the System control panel. > >I answered the question for Win98 because I don't know anybody who still uses >Win95, and I don't see why the memory handling would be different between the >two. Everything else is virtually identical between them. If OSR1 couldn't >address more than 128MB, then I guess my post is only half right, and I'm sorry. > >-Tom There are obviously a _lot_ of things you don't see. Check out max memory size on linux 1.2.13 (last 1.2 release) then 2.0.x and then 2.2.x... you might be surprised which will work with large memories and which won't. Point being win95 and win98 are _not_ the same system. 98 is newer. We had a lab full of win95 machines and found that they wouldn't recognize memory beyone 128mb (several years ago). We switched everything to NT (for other reasons) which nicely solved the problem. I don't keep up with which versions of windows do or don't do this and that. But clearly what works in 98 doesn't necessarily work in 95. As 98 was released to enhance things in 95...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.