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: Re:Polaroid sprintscan 4000 problems



I remember a conversation on this list in which a limit of 512 k for W98 was
mentioned.
I tried higher and did not get the PC working
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Finley <mike@efikim.compulink.co.uk>
To: <opopanax@xs4all.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:48 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Re:Polaroid sprintscan 4000 problems


> Windows 98 can certainly address more than 128MB RAM, though I don't know
> what its limits actually are. Some motherboards of that vintage may not
have
> been able to effectively use more than 128MB, perhaps?
>
snip
> Windows 2000 Professional has been mentioned, and I (vaguely) remember a
> conversation with someone about Windows 98 not being able to address more
> than 128Mb RAM. I do not know if this is correct, but I am going to try
it.
>
> Brian.
>


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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.