SPONSORED LINKS
My interest in the 32 MB module is for running NT 4.0 with the hope that system response would improve significantly, or somewhat more than noticeably, since I run some memory hogs. I spoke to a sysop at a shop that runs NT 3.51 on their work stations, normally with 32 MB, and he said that the performance increase should be noticeable but not enough to justify the cost and that a new box was a better way to go. As an aside, with 24 MB the 701 performs better with NT 4.0 than with Win95. It's more responsive although it does take longer to load and does not have some of features that 95 has that are useful for a notebook. On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, David Ross wrote: > 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 > >