SPONSORED LINKS
Randy Whittle writes: > difference. I posted sometime back that according to Norton Utilities, my > base Win 95 setup (with the little extras loaded, like Norton Navigator > utils) uses up something like 30 MB RAM just by booting up and sitting > there without any additional software loaded. The Win 95 kernel alone > (without *any* fancy stuff--i.e., networking capability) takes up 12 MB RAM. What is NU really reporting here? I've run Win95 w/only 8 megs, and while it is sometimes horribly slow, at other times it runs fine w/no HD access visible. A fair fraction of this kernel must therefore be fairly irrelevant, and Windows must be smart enough to page it to disk and keep it there. (Good grief, I've just used 'Windows' and 'smart' in a sentence not containing the word 'not'!) The reason I raised the question is that the price difference between a 16 meg dimm and a 32 meg dimm is very substantial, and to me wouldn't be worthwhile unless software actually ran faster at times other than when it was being loaded. (Common 'wisdom' on comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips is that too much memory can actually slow a system down! I don't know whether to believe it.) - David