Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:43:04 +0200 From: "James A Wilde" <james.wilde@tbv.se> To: "Send to questions" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Windows takes up less memory than Unix Was: (no subject) Message-ID: <NEBBLHNJHLFCJGCBFDKIAEFJCBAA.james.wilde@tbv.se> In-Reply-To: <20001019163123.A25482@icg-pc202.hofheim.icg-online.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > >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. I've obviously missed this continuation of the original thread. That's exactly what I meant - that Windows is not very good at warning one about bad chips. I fully agree with the other speaker also, that UNIX will run in much less memory than Windows or, alternatively, will achieve far more in the same memory. I have a 486 at home running (at the moment) Solaris with CDE quite happily. I wouldn't dream of trying to run even Windows 95 on a machine of that spec with any expectation of acceptable performance. mvh/regards James 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?NEBBLHNJHLFCJGCBFDKIAEFJCBAA.james.wilde>