The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Someone told me that Windows 98 could only take 252 Mb RAM, so there would be no point in getting 512 Mb or 1024 Mb RAM
Is this true?
If so, is this also the case with Windows XP?
Is this true?
If so, is this also the case with Windows XP?
I10 was poo, I left mid-way through Saturday to go to a party in Bath which was ace |o/
Although I did get to sleep on the bar :OD
Although I did get to sleep on the bar :OD
Hang on...Dwarf_pr0n..
That's multiplay..
*Remembers sitting 2 seats away at i10*
...Run awaaaay!
..MPUK invasion..
That's multiplay..
*Remembers sitting 2 seats away at i10*
...Run awaaaay!
..MPUK invasion..
32 bit - Computers or software programs capable of transferring data 32-bits at a time. A good example of a 32-bit operating system is OS/2 and Windows NT. The first true 32-bit processor was the Intel 80386.
32-bit can also refer to the amount of colors a video card is displaying. 32-bit is the same as 16.7 million colors (24 bit color with a 8-bit alpha channel).
Architecture - The overall design or structure of a computer system, including the hardware and the software required to run it, especially the internal structure of the microprocessor.
32-bit can also refer to the amount of colors a video card is displaying. 32-bit is the same as 16.7 million colors (24 bit color with a 8-bit alpha channel).
Architecture - The overall design or structure of a computer system, including the hardware and the software required to run it, especially the internal structure of the microprocessor.
32 bit ... archi ... tecture? What the hell does that mean?
On a 32bit architecture Windows can take up to 4gb of RAM.
So would it be worth it buying a new computer then upgrading to 1024 Mb RAM? I want it to last a long time. It would only cost 39 pounds more to upgrade.
I think it was 512MB of RAM Windows 98 could take.
Windows 98 did have some kind of issue with RAM. If you had to much RAM, it would try to use it all for buffer or something - leaving none for the programs. However, this could be fixed with a patch in DOS.
I think.
However, XP, I would imagine, should take as much as you can afford.
I think.
However, XP, I would imagine, should take as much as you can afford.
No it's not true. There were issues with hard drive size but I think Microsoft sorted that.
And Win XP DEFINATELY uses more RAM. In fact if you have 256Mb of RAM with Win XP you will find it runs like a dog. 512Mb is recommended for XP.
And Win XP DEFINATELY uses more RAM. In fact if you have 256Mb of RAM with Win XP you will find it runs like a dog. 512Mb is recommended for XP.
Someone told me that Windows 98 could only take 252 Mb RAM, so there would be no point in getting 512 Mb or 1024 Mb RAM
Is this true?
If so, is this also the case with Windows XP?
Is this true?
If so, is this also the case with Windows XP?