From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Apr 26 02:20:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA13295 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 02:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jocki.domestic (kuebart.stuttgart.netsurf.de [194.233.216.182]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA13269 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 02:20:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from joki@localhost) by jocki.domestic (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA00454; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 11:20:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.0 [p0] on FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970425233247.00b2da68@mixcom.com> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 10:11:43 +0200 (MET DST) From: Joachim Kuebart To: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" Subject: Re: Can't put 512MB ram in box ... Extended memory question. Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, Robert Withrow Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On 26-Apr-97 Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote: >At 08:01 PM 4/24/97 -0400, Robert Withrow wrote: >>Can someone tell my why WIN95 can figure out I have 128M in this machine >>(with no special help from me) and FreeBSD can't? I don't like the idea >>of WIN95 being smarter than FreeBSD.... ;-) Is the MAXMEM option correctly set in the kernel config file, like: options "MAXMEM=(128*1024)" > >Smarter? Not! I've seen 2 95 machines that would not recognize more than >64Mb and yes BIOS did see it, nor did it violate any rules for the number >of "sides" for memory. > >Good 'ole errartic MS. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FreeBSD Top breeders recommend it Joachim Kuebart Germany Tel: +49 711 653706