![]() Preserved Topic: Computer oddity (Page 1 of 1) |
|
---|---|
Maniac (V) Inmate From: PA |
![]() Check this out. |
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: Belgrade, Serbia |
![]() Does those numbers really represent percentage of free RAM memory, or you confused this with free system resources (you know, user, GDI, etc.) If those numbers actually represent free system resources, then that's a well-known problem with Windows 9x OS. No matter how much RAM memory you have, free system resources will get very very low under Windows 9x (more info about this can be found here). Situation is much different with Windows NT/2000, because it doesn't have any system resources limitations... |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: New Jersey, USA |
![]() I was under the impression that Win98 wouldn't even properly use that much RAM in the first place. |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: PA |
![]() Windows 98 doesn't support that much RAM but SE does. |
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: Belgrade, Serbia |
![]() That's not true, *all* versions of Windows 9x (95/98/Me) can handle maximum 512MB of RAM memory ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/14967.html ). On the other hand, under Windows NT/2000 there's no such limitation. |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: under the bed |
![]() well, really, windows 9x doesn't 'properly' use much of anything |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: New Jersey, USA |
![]() Sure it does DL |