Hello Jonathan, On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:36:23 -0500 GMT (23/10/02, 09:36 +0700 GMT), Jonathan Angliss wrote:
>> Your RAM seems awfully small. And I am surprised Win95 can handle a >> 3.2 GB drive. Don't you have problems wih other apps? > Win95 had a slightly lower memory requirement than other OSes by MS. > IIRC, Win95 could run inside (just) on 16meg of ram. Speaking of RAM, I have 128 MB of it and an avrage load of, say, 60%. If Mary has a total of 32 MB, I can imagine that problems occur, depending on which programs run in the background. I cannot check how many MB TB uses, plus AV software, plus etc etc. Opening an HTML message might just have been the bit too many. But if you read my quoted sentence above carefully, you'll see that I was talking about the HD, not RAM. I was surprised that Win95 is able to *address* 3.2 GB of storage. > Not really. Win95 was the first of the 32bit OSes from MS, I see. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Hilf einem Freund in der Not und er wird sich an dich erinnern, wenn er wieder in Not ist. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta7 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 2222 A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
