(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA037260263; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 20:04:23 -0700
Return-Path: <owner-lightwave@webcom.webcom.com>
Received: from nova.unix.portal.com by webcom.webcom.com with ESMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA036890249; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 20:04:09 -0700
Received: from hobo.online.portal.com (hobo.online.portal.com [156.151.5.5]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id TAA19178 for <lightwave@webcom.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 19:55:08 -0700
From: Jeric@cup.portal.com
Received: (pccop@localhost) by hobo.online.portal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id TAA17505 for lightwave@webcom.com; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 19:55:07 -0700
To: lightwave@webcom.webcom.com
Subject: Re: Slightly off-topic memory question
Lines: 25
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 95 19:55:07 PDT
Message-Id: <9508101955.1.17331@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
Sender: owner-lightwave@webcom.webcom.com
Precedence: bulk
>Windows NT is a memory hog, right? We all know that and I believe it on this
>list that I saw it takes up 12 megs for itself. That's why we're all buying
>32 meg Pentiums.
Far be it from me to prevent people from getting 32 megs, as they
all should, but NT ran fine running LW on my P90-16m for 3 months.
>
>Well I did the same, but when I go to Windows NT Diagnostics right after
>booting and look at avaiable physical memory, it tells me I only have about
>11 megs left. If I remember correctly, 32 - 12 = 20. So where did those 9
>megs go to?
Both Allen and Stuart have mentioned that the NT "ram available"
numbers are some kind of machine fantasy that systems running
Microsoft OSs have, kinda like an opium dream.
>--- | David Roth | E-mail: david.roth@bahianet.com |