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]

[filmscanners] Re: Windows Memory Mgt.

Edward writes:

> I have been told by a friend at Microsoft ...
> that W98 and 2000 were designed long enough
> ago that their memory handling is not up to
> todays graphics demands.

Not quite true.  While all of the Windows 9x family of operating systems are
very poor at memory management, being essentially 32-bit rehashes of the old
16-bit Windows/MS-DOS environment, the Windows NT family--NT itself, Windows
2000, and Windows XP--includes very efficient memory management that is more
than adequate for today's graphics applications.

> Specifically, although they can address large
> arrays of RAM, they can't handle the full size
> at one time.

Sure they can, at least in the case of Windows 2000.

The Windows 9x family is a waste of time for anyone who needs to do serious
graphics work, however.

> Windows XP is said to be better at this ...

XP and 2000 (and NT) have pretty much the same memory-management
architecture.  They are all good at managing memory.

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.