Closed Thread Icon

Preserved Topic: Computer oddity (Page 1 of 1) Pages that link to <a href="https://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=16201" title="Pages that link to Preserved Topic: Computer oddity (Page 1 of 1)" rel="nofollow" >Preserved Topic: Computer oddity <span class="small">(Page 1 of 1)</span>\

 
MalFunkShun
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: PA
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 07-14-2001 02:16

Check this out.

My computer has 512MB of RAM, not to long ago that was amasing but not now. Anyway, I restarted my computer and got a VXD error. Started up in Safe mode. Tried to find the problem with no success. Never could get Windows to start properly. So I did what I know best and my computer kinda needed it at this point. Format....Reinstall. I then downloaded and installed all the same software I had before. The most important being AnalogX's MaxMem. Before the reinstall i usually ran from 50-75% RAM free. Now I am noticing that I get well below 40%. This seems very odd considering I run the same exact programs with all the current updates. My computer has been freezing up more and just a whole bunch of junk I wasn't expecting. Anyone that can offer some insight please tell me. My computer was awesome now it is shit. Not "The Shit" ....shit.

FYI
AMD 1GHz
512MB PC133
40Gig HD
Azza KT133 MOBO
Radeon 32MB DDR vid

if you feel you need to know more to help solve my problems just email me.
Thanx


.:!:..:!:..:!:..:!:..:!:..:!:.
MalFunkShun
(i think it's broken)
.:!:..:!:..:!:..:!:..:!:..:!:.

mr.maX
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Belgrade, Serbia
Insane since: Sep 2000

posted posted 07-14-2001 02:44

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...



[This message has been edited by mr.maX (edited 07-14-2001).]

butcher
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: New Jersey, USA
Insane since: Oct 2000

posted posted 07-14-2001 03:16

I was under the impression that Win98 wouldn't even properly use that much RAM in the first place.

- Resolutions, Of All My Fruitless Searches -

MalFunkShun
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: PA
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 07-14-2001 04:16

Windows 98 doesn't support that much RAM but SE does.

.:!:..:!:..:!:..:!:..:!:..:!:.
MalFunkShun
(i think it's broken)
.:!:..:!:..:!:..:!:..:!:..:!:.

mr.maX
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Belgrade, Serbia
Insane since: Sep 2000

posted posted 07-14-2001 10:02

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.



[This message has been edited by mr.maX (edited 07-14-2001).]

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 07-14-2001 14:30

well, really, windows 9x doesn't 'properly' use much of anything



?Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative? -- Oscar Wilde

butcher
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: New Jersey, USA
Insane since: Oct 2000

posted posted 07-14-2001 14:51

Sure it does DL

It makes "proper" use of all my patience!

- Resolutions, Of All My Fruitless Searches -

[This message has been edited by butcher (edited 07-14-2001).]

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu