From:	"A. Sinan Unur" <sinan DOT unur AT cornell DOT edu>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: :Memory Exhausted
Date:	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 15:22:38 -0500
Organization:	Cornell University (http://www.cornell.edu/)
Lines:	30
Sender:	asu1 AT cornell DOT edu (Verified)
Message-ID:	<3515730D.3D36720C@cornell.edu>
References:	<3514FC7A DOT 228B9DD1 AT cornell DOT edu> <1998032218273101 DOT NAA16378 AT ladder01 DOT news DOT aol DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	cu-dialup-1901.cit.cornell.edu
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

QBallLives wrote:
> 
> >
> >i don't think this is relevant at all.
> >
> >
> 
> I sincerely apologize Sinan.... but I do believe conventional memory 
> (or lack thereof...) can have a significant impact on nearly any 
> operation you'd want to perform...

not in this case.

> 
> btw... (not that this is referring to YOUR post) - a Pentium is NOT 4 
> times faster than my 486.... it's FORTY (40) times faster.... I've 
> been getting alot of e-mail telling me my computer must be messed 
> up....

my desktop machine is a 486DX4-75 (roughly the same overall performance
as a DX2-66) with a WD hard drive, and 16 MB memory. i routinely use
p133s and p166s at school with similar hard drives and 32 Mb. they are
NOT forty times faster. what may be 40 times faster (or more) is the 300
Mhz Pentium II with 128 Mb, and 2 4 gig IBM SCSI HDs (the swap file is
on the second drive) i just set up for my committee chair, not your
run-of-the-mill pentium.

if you are happy, that's fine.

  -- Sinan

- Raw text -