SPONSORED LINKS
I'm giving serious thought to throwing in a new HD on my 760E, to get a clean install for when I try installing NT 4.0, but since I've only got 24 M RAM, I checked out the price for another 16 M SIMM - I think (do not quote me, I sell nothing..) that Unigen has 'em for $400 or so - price is going back up (was $270-ish a few months back.) It runs fast, real fast, with 24 M and 95, but I have NT 3.51 with 32 on my desktop, and that just sorta runs along, nothing to write home about. This leads me to agree.. NT is a big old pig when it comes to RAM, but it's also damn hard for the network / OS / me to make it fall over and get the blue screen of death. Pigs have their place in the world, it would seem.. > Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 16:20:43 -0400 (EDT) > From: Christian Carey <ccarey@CapAccess.org> > Subject: Re: NT 4.0 on 760c w/24MB > To: Michael Klenner <klennerm@is.nyu.edu> > Cc: THINKPAD@cs.utk.edu > On Tuesday, 1st October 1996, Michael Klenner wrote: > > > I can say from vast experience that NT really isn't worth running on > > anything with LESS than 32 Megs. > > No argument here! > > > I run NT 4.0 Workstation on a P-133 with 80 Megs of RAM and about 9 Gigs > > formatted NTFS. It's PLENTY fast. > > I haven't seen it run on a Pentium with that much RAM, so I'll bow to your > first-hand experience. > > > Bottom line: WinNT is a memory hog. > > Again, total concurrence. > > > When I decide to shoehorn a 32 Meg card into the 'Pad I'll think about > > putting NT on it, but not until then. > > And so, getting back to the original query - what is the RAM capacity of a > 760C? If the fellow wanted to have reasonably performing Windows NT, how > much would it cost him (approximately) to get the RAM to get the performance? > > Christian. > -- > Christian Carey (ccarey@CapAccess.ORG) +1 301 431 0053 > > Nick Rushizky ---> nick@atlas.mis.mei.com Marquette Medical Systems PC Support Help Desk All opinions are my fault only.