From: Vincent Poy (vince_at_pele.WURLDLINK.NET)
Date: Mon Mar 27 2000 - 16:14:18 EST
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Michael Geary wrote:
> > Some of this code dates back to Windows 1.0. Remember the 286?
>
> > That's true... I wonder why Win9x never increased the System
> > Resources limit or made it variable depending on how much physical memory
> > you had since a 286 only can handle about 1 meg of RAM while machines
> > these days can handle up to 4 gig.
>
> Because it's still 286 code! 16-bit, not 32-bit. Win9x has quite a mix of
> the two.
Yeah, that's true since it's basically 1/2 an OS since it loads on
top of DOS.
> > The thing is during the Windows 3.0 days, there weren't many Win
> > apps so most of the stuff was still DOS based. Even in Windows/286 and
> > Windows/386 v2.0, there weren't any Windows apps except for a few and
> > mostly DOS apps. That was the reason people ran DesqView. Does something
> > like Agent 95, RAM Doubler still exist? I know SoftRAM was a Hoax but I
> > thought all the ones you mentioned were really supposed to be just virtual
> > memory products and not resource limit hacks.
>
> RAM Doubler started out as a Mac product which primarily did RAM compression
> as an alternative to swapping memory to disk. Connectix (www.connectix.com)
> still sells the Mac version, but the Windows version and Agent 95 are no
> longer on the market. RAM Doubler for Windows did some RAM compression, but
> since Win31 had decent virtual memory already, its main focus was relieving
> the 64K system resource limits, using a variety of VxD tricks to do this.
> Agent 95 was a follow-on for Windows 95. It did some of the system resource
> stuff, but that wasn't needed as much for Windows 95--back then people were
> delighted to have 32Mb in a machine, so with the modest system resource
> improvements that Win95 had on its own, you would tend to run out of system
> resources about the same time you ran out of memory.
>
> But now you've got what, 320K on your ThinkPad? Oops! Like I went on and on
> about in my other message, it's definitely Win2K and VMware for you... <g>
Actually Win95 managed resources way better than Win98/98SE
did. I'm sure Win2k and VMware is a good combo. =) But my question is
that assuming all my hardware is already compatible with Win2k. There
seems to be a few dos apps that might or not run with win2k. Now the
other question is assuming I am running win2k, vmware and freebsd under
the vmware window. Which one will get control of the networking?
Cheers,
Vince - vince_at_WURLDLINK.NET - Vice President ________ __ ____
Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / | / |[__ ]
WurldLink Corporation / / / / | / | __] ]
San Francisco - Honolulu - Hong Kong / / / / / |/ / | __] ]
HongKong Stars/Gravis UltraSound Mailing Lists Admin /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[____]
Almighty1_at_IRC - oahu.DAL.NET Hawaii's DALnet IRC Network Server Admin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:54 EST