Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 17:14:34 04/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2000 at 16:25:43, Mark Longridge wrote: >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 Thank you and to all Wayne
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.