 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
96 MBs. Another 256MB I tried to canibalize from another PC didnt work.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kitschum
|
|
Immer an der Grenze
Oct 2001 time: 06:30
|
|
128. Which has been fine for I dunno, four (?) years now.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zopperoni
|
|
1,024 MB DDR-400
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote: 16GB? Yeah, right. You'd need a 64-bit computer for that, and only servers ship with that much (and it's not one single computer usually). |
Darn. Well, you know, it would be awesome to have wouldn't it?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
I have 512mb in my games PC and that's perfect.
In this Machine I only have 120MB and a 500mhz AMD K6-2. Do you guys think throwing in another 64MB ( my dad has some spare) is going to help at all, or has it reached the limit RAM can boost it with??
Cheers
Matt
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001 time: 06:30
|
|
I have 512 MB DDR, and I don't know what I'd need more RAM for.
Those were the days, when 16 bit addressing made us a 64k RAM barrier and we needed bank switching and stuff like that for more. Then, with the 80x86 in real mode with 2x16 bit addressing, came the 1 MB barrier, and you needed EMS or XMS to use all above. And to care about "memory models", when programming. Then came the full 32 bit addressing, making it possible to address up to 4 GB, and programming was easy in the "flat" memory model. That was a bit more than 10 years ago, in the late 80's/early 90's, and some people thought that would be enough forever. Ha!
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|