(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA224205252; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 19:40:52 -0700
Return-Path: <owner-lightwave@webcom.webcom.com>
Received: from kitten.mcs.com by webcom.webcom.com with ESMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA223885236; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 19:40:36 -0700
Received: from mailbox.mcs.com (Mailbox.mcs.com [192.160.127.87]) by kitten.mcs.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA14471 for <lightwave@webcom.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 21:32:29 -0500
Received: by mailbox.mcs.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.5)
id <m0sh6Lr-000jtrC@mailbox.mcs.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 95 21:31 CDT
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 21:31 CDT
From: johnc@mcs.com (John Crookshank)
To: lightwave@webcom.webcom.com (lightwave)
Subject: Re: Slightly off-topic memory question
Message-Id: <1023.6431T552T2670@mcs.com>
X-Mailer: THOR 2.1� (TCP/IP)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 20
Sender: owner-lightwave@webcom.webcom.com
Precedence: bulk
on 10-Aug-95 21:56:21, davewarner (davewarner@globalone.net) Emailed:
> I'm about to purchase an Alpha workstation and I'm debating whether I
> should spend an extra $1,000 to go for an additional 32megs (total of
> 64) of RAM, or if I should just put that money towards a faster
> processor, since a 275mhz Alpha is only $700 more than a 200mhz
> version.
Spend the money. We have a Raptor3 with 64MB, and I've run low on ram
and hit the virtual memory once or twice already. NT caches an awful lot of
the system resources, and the more ram you have, the more it caches, and