Author: Mark Longridge
Date: 13:25:43 04/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2000 at 21:53:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Well, I thought I'd try it with crafty compiled by Microsoft C++ 5.0 with Win95b (also called OSR2) with 256 megs of ram. Windows 95b showed 256 megs of ram under system properties. I set crafty to hash 96 megs and hashp 80 megs, a total of 176 megs of ram allocated. I played a game against it and it worked fine. Mark
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.