Re: (Xnews) Memory Problems reading goups with millions of posts - Thanks ->>> with a P.S. for SCPO (this time no PS but read anyway if you care to)
- From: thanatoid <waiting@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:13:10 -0600
c64fan@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote in
news:1142515302.460044.166020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
thanatoid wrote:
c64fan@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote in
news:1142452149.719320.68290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Blinky the Shark wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:45:39 -0600, thanatoid wrote:
Blinky the Shark <no.spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:pan.2006.02.22.03.56.55.244008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.ne t:
I thought you were having tiny-memory problems.
Since, as you know, I use a 166MMX with Win95B for
the internet, you probably also know that 64MB is all
95 can make use of. And
No, I don't know that it has that limit.
That would be because there is no such limit. It's a
myth that started with early Pentium systems that used
certain versions of the Intel chipsets which were
designed so that only the first 64 mb of RAM would be
supported by the L2 cache on the motherboard and RAM
beyond 64 megabytes would therefore operate without the
benefit of the L2 cache. The report of memory beyond 64
mb not using the cache somehow got transformed into
"more than 64 mb of memory won't work" (incedentally,
those chipsets were discontinued when the MMX chipset
came out, so even if the "64MB limit" wasn't a myth, it
doesn't apply to his machine)
The intended memory limit of the Win95 (and susequently
98 and ME) OS is 2 GB however there can be false "out of
memory" errors produced, and also other problems, on
Windows 95/98/Me systems with more than 512 mb of RAM
installed.
Interesting. You MAY be right, I am NO expert (as I keep
on telling this group and yet they still can't help
attacking my every OPINION).
Seems to me they've been attacking your claims that are
factually inaccurate and your attitude, but that's just my
perception of events.
I have =repeatedly= asked to be corrected on my inaccurate
facts, and never was. Attitude (hopefully NOT confused with the
grit to actually HAVE an OPINION) is an area where many of us
could use a serious adjustment. The Usenet seems to bring out
the worst in most people (you being a very commendable exception
- I am quite impressed by the calmness and maturity of your
posts).
However, the claim of 2GB RAM limit having been "intended"
for Win95 sounds, excuse my language, ridiculous. We were
using 350MB drives then! (IIRC.)
What would be ridiculous is designing an OS that would have
designed limits that matched technology at the time of the
OS was released. 600MB Hard drives coming out next week?
too bad our OS is limited to the current 350MB drives!
So how do you explain the 640KB limit (I'm sure I don't need to
quote the famous Gates statement)?
Even putting that aside (and putting aside that fact that
RAM and it's limit is a seperate beast from Hard drive and
their limits).
Separate, not unrelated. If you HD only had 350MB (and ¼ of it
was the OS), and you were using the software written the way a
lot of it was still written then (i.e. without utter disregard
for compactness, consistency, and elegance) I can't imagine WHAT
you would have to do to need even 256MB RAM.
Also, M$ doesn't exactly have the perfect record for guessing
future developments. "Duh, Bill, there's this something called
"enter-net", maybe we should git in on it, I heerd it might git
big". Of course, they are rather good at other things. Another
topic.
When Win95 came out, it's FAT16 partition
system limited you to Hard drive Partions of 2GB
(considerable more than the 350MB drives that you recall
from that time. and considerably more than the 500MB that
many BIOSes at the time limited your Hard Drives to).
You will find that these limits (Hard Drive and RAM) were
NOT dictated by the technology on the shelves at the time
by rather by the way they were coded by the programmers
which is rather too complicated to explain simply. this web
site gives a good look at some of the reasons for the
various Hard Drive limitations as technology progressed
http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_ba
rriers.htm
Great link, very interesting, thank you. AND I finally found out
what comes after terabyte! Anyone know what comes after THAT?
And even if it WAS so, your last paragraph pretty much
says it all. Not just about the 2GB limit, also about M$.
But that's another subject.
well that's what happens when hardware technology catches
up to the limits in the software. As you pointed out, at
the time win95 was designed technology did not allow RAM
and hard drive capacties anywhere near the programmed
limits, which makes it rather difficult to test the
accuracy of the programs at those limits.
That's quite a nice combination of apology AND praise for M$.
They should hire you for PR (wink).
Whether the "usable RAM limit" is fictitious or not, tests
have been conducted to see just HOW much difference more
RAM makes, although you will certainly not see them pinned
to the walls of computer stores.
yes, tests have been conducted and, in general more ram you
have the better performance (though as you point out each
increment of RAM you add, adds less performance gains than
the previous increment). Of course it also depends on what
you are doing. IF the programs you run with 64MB causes you
to hit the swap disk frequently, than upping it to 128MB
would see you more of a gain than if your 64MB doesn't
cause you to the swap disk as often.
Of course. But some programs use the swap file all the time,
some never, and some require their own (or equivalents) to be
created before they will let you do anything. (In fact this is
what most threads about XNews memory problems, this one
included, owe their existence to.)
And most hardware performance tests are conducted with
everything being identical except the item in question (or the
other way around, but rarely both, one would hope).
It really depends on the individual and what they are doing
(not everyone one uses their computers for the same things
or in the same way), which is why general statements based
on one persons experiences will usually get that person in
trouble. As has happened in this thread from my
perspective.
I have yet to hear the same platform from 5 different
politicians (I know, I know, let's not get into that whole
thing), the same diagnosis from 5 different MD's, or the same
solution to any problem I have ever had with a computer from 5
different experts.
Nor do I know many people who have personally had more than "one
person's" experience. Why stating what has occurred to you, your
opinion/analysis of it, and occasionally offering suggestions
based on that is so offensive to the members of this group is
hard to understand.
.
- References:
- Re: (Xnews) Memory Problems reading goups with millions of posts - Thanks ->>> with a P.S. for SCPO (this time no PS but read anyway if you care to)
- From: c64fan
- Re: (Xnews) Memory Problems reading goups with millions of posts - Thanks ->>> with a P.S. for SCPO (this time no PS but read anyway if you care to)
- From: thanatoid
- Re: (Xnews) Memory Problems reading goups with millions of posts - Thanks ->>> with a P.S. for SCPO (this time no PS but read anyway if you care to)
- From: c64fan
- Re: (Xnews) Memory Problems reading goups with millions of posts - Thanks ->>> with a P.S. for SCPO (this time no PS but read anyway if you care to)
- Prev by Date: Re: Xnews out of memory problem
- Next by Date: Re: Xnews out of memory problem
- Previous by thread: Re: (Xnews) Memory Problems reading goups with millions of posts - Thanks ->>> with a P.S. for SCPO (this time no PS but read anyway if you care to)
- Next by thread: Re: (Xnews) Memory Problems reading goups with millions of posts - Thanks ->>> with a P.S. for SCPO (this time no PS bu
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
