Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:07 am
Uhhhh... LOL!!!! Haha, sorry, that's 1.25 GB.. still getting used to having over a GB of RAM... xP hahahahamachf wrote:So, 1.25MB of RAM... wow... and your next upgrade will be to 64KB?
TresCom : The Trespasser Fan Gateway...
http://www.trescomforum.org/
Uhhhh... LOL!!!! Haha, sorry, that's 1.25 GB.. still getting used to having over a GB of RAM... xP hahahahamachf wrote:So, 1.25MB of RAM... wow... and your next upgrade will be to 64KB?
I thought it was 3GB max with an AMD processor, and 4GB with an Intel one?Dragonlord wrote:Just with the problem that XP is still not able to cope correctly with memory over 1GB... lost memory
1.25MB? I thought 895MB (mine) was small? what is a normal amount of RAM??machf wrote:Yes, I jumped over, took a couple of steps more, and hit an invisible wall, turned right and ended up falling to the bottom of the ocean. Didn't bother going back there and turning left after reloading, I only did that much later...
So, 1.25MB of RAM... wow... and your next upgrade will be to 64KB?
oh ok my mistake, only chose this computer because of it's large (and seemingly very delicate ) hard drivemachf wrote:He made a typo, 1.25GB is what he meant... I was just making fun of it.
Hmm, that's the unofficial blurb from the computing front though, not MS.Dragonlord wrote:It's Micro$oft... they never keep what they promise
I've worked for a long time with Linux and *urks* Windows systems. The restrictions and short sighted design choices are what I fight against at various places . Blurb or not RAM over 1GB doesn't help much on XP systems unless you strip out anything vitalTheGuy wrote:Hmm, that's the unofficial blurb from the computing front though, not MS.Dragonlord wrote:It's Micro$oft... they never keep what they promise
Just because XP doesn't use that much RAM (a system with 192MB is fine for windows XP), it doesn't mean it can't see it. My friend has an XP computer with 2GB RAM and it works fine, the RAM is seen and used by apps that need it. But you're so damn right about Linux being better than Windows. The only reason I use XP is that the software I know and love isn't available on Linux.Dragonlord wrote:I've worked for a long time with Linux and *urks* Windows systems. The restrictions and short sighted design choices are what I fight against at various places . Blurb or not RAM over 1GB doesn't help much on XP systems unless you strip out anything vital
wow it's not often people call themselves hackers due to the negative connotations. some people like myself merely direct others and do a little work from their computers and windows is fine for us.Dragonlord wrote:That's correct, which is why hackers like me and many others are trying to change that
So true. I'm proud to be a hacker and I use the word in the correct sense no matter what people think.machf wrote:Unfortunately, people tend to get hackers confused with crackers. Quite annoying...