Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color



I've been a bit slow answering this as I was meaning to do some tests of 
my own, but as I haven't had the time...

As I understand it, one major factor is that a lot of motherboards only 
cache a portion of the memory address space. Windows 95/98/ME have their 
memory managed in such a way that if you put in more RAM than the cached 
area code runs in uncached RAM.

This has the effect that applications slow down if you have too much RAM!

Of course this is offset by the increase in disc buffers and those apps 
like Photoshop that need lots of RAM for data.

Windows NT and 2000 have a different layout of managed memory and tend to 
keep code in low RAM.

Another non-intuitive situation is that increasing the RAM in W95/98/ME 
doesn't have the slightest effect on the amount of resource space. So the 
number of things you can run at the same time is unchanged no matter how 
much RAM you have.

This is another limitation that doesn't exist in NT and Windows 2000. Each 
process has its own resource space, so the number of concurrent processes 
you can run depends upon the RAM size as well as the CPU power instead of 
hitting a hard resource limit.

 Add to that the ability to use multiple processors, each of which can 
use an extra chunk of RAM, and NT and W2000 are inherently more powerful 
when you start using lots of RAM.

bob@shomler.com (Bob Shomler) wrote:

> >2) It will use as much RAM as you can pack on a board. Windows 98 and 
> ME >can't really use more RAM than about 256M effectively, but W2K can 
> go all >the way :-)  
> 
> Can you elaborate on win98's inability to use larger RAM (or refer me 
> to some discussion on this)?
> 
> Thanks.
> --
> Bob Shomler
> http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
> 
> 




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.