Hello Steve Lamb,
On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 10:19:45 -0800 GMT your local time,
which was Tuesday, December 28, 1999, 1:19:45 AM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Steve Lamb wrote:
Steve> Monday, December 27, 1999, 9:56:45 AM, tracer wrote:
>> Same with having that silly onboard video using system ram.
Steve> Funny thing is take a look at what AGP boards use for their frame buffer.
Steve> ;)
Ok, its one of the reasons with heavy gaming you need a LOT of ram.
However onboard video cam be demonstrated easily: just use a
smallvideo camera.
Same board/same ram etc but with onboard deactivated can be set to
larger video 'boxes on the screen' before it isnt able to refresh the
whole picture and trying to play mpeg with onboard video is also a
good way to see that a real video card is better..
>> In my own case the main reason I had a lot of ram was internet, to
>> make use of the lousy and expensive capcity I had, I went for enough
>> ram to be able to run double/tripple ftps up and down, have a news
>> reader running and my mail and if required a mpeg movie for my son.
Steve> Gah, all of that is what, 16Mb? Oh, wait, sorry, thinking Linux again.
You needed it not for the programs but to keep windows stable....
Steve> SLRN, newsreader, ~2Mb.
Steve> lftp, ftp client, ~1.5Mb (can do multiple connections)
Steve> MP3 in X, 12Mb.
agreed..
>> Mainly price as it was very difficult to sell extra ram at prices it
>> was a few years ago. Enough ram could double the pc price.
Steve> Yeah, years ago. I was still in that mindset until I got my C400a so I
Steve> could keep up with the games. 64Mb of RAM w/tax and S&H cost me a whopping
Steve> $89. That is when RAM prices were (are?) supposed to be "high".
I remember ram prices... well, lets say they luckily have come
down!!!A lot.
>> 98 needs about 64 MINIMUM to run and from what I heard about windows
>> 2000 it needs at least 256. Also in my experience, the faster the machine
>> the more ram you need to get rid of that hard disk bottle neck Steve
>> mentoned.
Steve> If that is the case it is completely unacceptable. Jeez, I can get Linux
Steve> to boot and run doing much more work than Windows in under 2Mb w/o touching
Steve> swap.
You havent yet heard what acc to quite a few betatesters the minimum
processor requirement is.... Yours MAY just qualify to be pleasantly
usable....
Steve> Hell, the most useful computing device I bought recently for real *work*
Steve> was my Palm IIIe with a whopping 2Mb.
Look at the old Amigas, the zx80 (which we canibalised for tapedrive
controllers: the cheapest ones available....)
Steve> What is MS' problem?
if it isnt bigger and needs more power nobody upgrades... They got the
donkey running behind the carrot in circles.
>> I had a small scsi drive (one of those fast ones) just for swapping...
Steve> total used free shared buffers cached
Steve> Mem: 63348 60396 2952 19828 21664 18840
Steve> -/+ buffers/cache: 19892 43456
Steve> Swap: 132072 3100 128972
Steve> I just avoid the problem. I think the 3.1Mb of swap is from the PMMail
Steve> list I host hammering my system. If I limited exim to 25 copies instead of 50
Steve> I'd not touch swap at all.
I run Linux on the same machine, and it runs nicely....It should!
>> you couldnt get the proper ram?? (g)
Steve> That was the proper RAM. The AWE32 had two SIMM slots for an expanded
Steve> memory buffer for synth sound files.
ah, as many people add ram to video and sound cards but cannot get the
exact correcy speed/type and then it can become a nightmare...
Best regards,
tracer
Using theBAT 1.38e
mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
