From: David Goldman (dgoldman_at_best.com)
Date: Sun Aug 01 1999 - 11:25:14 EDT
At 08:06 AM 8/1/99 , you wrote:
>At 07:56 AM 8/1/99 -0700, Vincent Poy wrote:
>>On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, richard wrote:
>>
>> > At 07:47 AM 8/1/99 -0700, Vincent Poy wrote:
>> > > Oops, guess you missed that part... I have 256MB of RAM on a 770Z
>> > >9549-8AU. I had 128MB RAM two days ago... Just upgraded two days ago
>> > >using the $197 Crucial/Micron 128MB memory module... Funny thing is the
>> >
>> > Have you noticed any difference in performance between 128mb and 256mb?
>>
>> Not really... I thought it would increase the resources available
>>but it didn't.
>
>AFAIK, win95/98 resources are limited to a fixed amount of memory no matter how much RAM you have.
In Windows 9x, the "resources" are limited to 64K per GDI, User and System. In Windows
3.1, the same was true. The only reason that there are so much more resources available
in Win9x then there were in Win 3.1 was that M$ changed their calculation between the
two versions. In Win 3.1, the calculation was based on the idea that 100% available
was 64K. In Win 9x, the calculation is based on the idea that 100% is the amount of
the 64K RAM that is unused AFTER the kernel has booted. In other words, in Win 3.1,
the kernel used resources. In Win 9x, the portion of the kernel used to boot the
machine does NOT use resources. To put it another way, there isn't really a difference
in the amount of available resources between Win 3.1 and Win 9x, only a difference
in the way the calculations are done.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:13 EST