Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:31:23 +0200 From: Manfred Usselmann <usselmann.m@icg-online.de> To: Christopher Rued <c.rued@xsb.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Windows takes up less memory than Unix Was: (no subject) Message-ID: <20001019163123.A25482@icg-pc202.hofheim.icg-online.de> In-Reply-To: <14830.7083.556001.759808@chris.xsb.com>; from c.rued@xsb.com on Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 05:52:43PM -0400 References: <39EE0D68.E0102B92@wmptl.com> <200010182142.XAA24345@icg-pc202.hofheim.icg-online.de> <14830.7083.556001.759808@chris.xsb.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 05:52:43PM -0400, Christopher Rued wrote: > Manfred Usselmann writes: > > On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:51:52 -0400, Nathan Vidican wrote: > > > > >James A Wilde wrote: > > >> > > >> My limited experience indicates that Unix is much more damanding of the > > >> hardware than, say, Windows. > > >> > > >> You may have 192 Mb ram, but if 64 Mb of it is shaky from the Unix point of > > >> view you can get signal 11 and still be able to run Windows with just the > > >> occasional GPF, which makes you curse and reboot. Try taking out your RAM > > >> chips one at a time and see how you get on. If you find that install > > >> continues when, say, chip 2 is removed, try and sell that one to a Windows > > >> user and get yourself a new one. > > >> > > >> If I'm on the wrong track, hopefully someone will come in on this thread and > > >> correct me. > > >> > > >> mvh/regards > > >> > > >> James > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > >> > From: Mc Claude [mailto:privat-mc@gmx.de] > > >> > Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 12:43 > > >> > To: james.wilde@telia.com > > >> > Subject: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Hello! > > >> > > > >> > Yes it isn't Fault 11, it is Signal 11! But I think I can full fill all > > >> > hardware requirements! > > >> > 192 MB RAM, enough space on HD! I've downloaded the FreeBSD from server as > > >> > ISO then I burned it on a CD but this CD can't be loaded after BIOS > > >> > sequence! So I've made boot disks! And then I've did all which > > >> > you have read > > >> > in the last e-mail! So I hope you help me! > > >> > > > >> > CU! > > >> > > > >> > > >> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > >> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > > > > > > > > >Your experience must be VERY limited then, because I've got 386/486 > > >machines running with 4-8megs of ram just fine (usually at under 10% of > > >capacity at that!), like to see that from any winblows box. > > > > I think you misunderstood James. I believe he wanted to say that > > Windows is more likely to accept / tolerate bad RAM chips. > > Are we to beleive that this is a *good* thing? IMO No. > I'd rather have the OS let me know something was wrong immediately > rather than have it run happily along without letting me know that > anything is wrong (except for the GPF, BSOD, and other apparently > random crashes). I agree. Manfred -- Manfred Usselmann usselmann.m@icg-online.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001019163123.A25482>