Ram: more vs. speed?

David Maynard wrote:
John Doe wrote:

snip of asinine gibberish

Summary: You were wrong to say "If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium,
then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."

I disagree.

Windows98 or Millennium can use more than 512MB with the vcache registry
change.

For most people using Windows 98 or Millennium, I would call it coping with
more than 512MB of memory.









Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy. com!prodigy.net!
prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.co m!news.glorb.com!sn-xit-
04!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-08!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!
corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Ram: more vs. speed?
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:09:11 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References:

Xns9593BD776B575wisdomfolly@
151.164.30.42
10oc345sig1pg38
@corp.supernews.com
Xns95944C098127Fwisdomfolly@
151.164.30.42
10oepultjdch818
@corp.supernews.com
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To:
Lines: 10
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:421001

David Maynard wrote:
John Doe wrote:
David Maynard wrote:
John Doe wrote:
David Maynard wrote:

....

I am well aware of the "fixed resource" problem but it has nothing to
do with 512 Meg of RAM.

Sure it does, for the vast majority of users.

Typically, using more memory means you are running more programs.
Running more programs means you're using more resources. The typical
user is going to run out of resources before he (or she) uses 512MB of
RAM in Windows 98 or Millennium.

Windows 98 and Millennium just weren't designed for more than 512MB of
memory. That's what Windows NT and Windows 2000 were designed for.

It can occur with less RAM and it might not occur with
more RAM; it depends on the applications, their memory usage and the
resources they consume.

Applications typically consume a greater percentage of fixed resources
than they consume of 512MB of RAM. That is my point which you have
inadvertently supported in prior posts.

Resource memory in Windows 9x is fixed. In order to use a lot of RAM,
like 512MB, one usually runs a lot of programs.

I want to see your poll

Let's take a look at what you were saying in July of 2004.

David Maynard wrote:
Except 128 Meg of RAM is quite nice on Win98SE.

http://tinyurl.com/4o9bq
Message-ID:

David Maynard wrote:
... with 128 meg you're in hog heaven, as long as you don't get too
piggish about it.
And by that I mean it isn't a 'power user' office system; just
relatively mild work use as opposed to some hair-on-fire yahoo editing
3 manuals, replete with embedded pictures, charts, and graphs, while
working with 3 excel spreadsheets, photoshop, a powerpoint
presentation and updating his MS project schedule as he checks meeting
times in Outlook to see if he's gonna make it.

http://tinyurl.com/53jzt
Message-ID:

I guarantee you that if you have the programs you yourself listed right
there open in Windows 98, you'll run out of system resources or at least
come very close. And that in your head was easily doable with 128MB of
RAM, while we are now talking about four times that amount.

But if you run a lot of programs, you eat up resource memory. For the
vast majority of users, resource memory will be gone long before they
use 512MB of RAM.

Which, even if true, is irrelevant to your 'absolute' statement. You
didn't say "if he's a typical user" or "it's unlikely" or any other
'vast majority' qualifier. You simple said, nope, won't be able to use
it.

It won't be the last time because I don't have time to explain
everything, so sometimes I use generalizations. I appreciate the
opportunity to elaborate.

There might be exceptions, for example, a Photoshop user might be
willing to run a few additional programs because he or she seriously
needs to use Photoshop and Windows 9x.

Which proves that your original absolute statement

It's not black-and-white.

"If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use
more than 512MB anyway" is false because you have no idea what he might
care to run on the machine.

A few months ago, you said 128MB of RAM in Windows 98 was "hog heaven" for
a typical user.

What happened?

In my last years with Windows 9x, I was
often running up against the fixed resource memory problem.
http://tinyurl.com/598b9
http://tinyurl.com/4kc6x
Those two links might help explain what I'm talking about.

I already know what you're talking about. What you can't seem to figure
out is simply because the apps YOU ran hit the limit doesn't mean that
NO ONE can use more than 512 Meg, which you fallaciously assume every
time you just wildly, with no explanation of what you mean by it or
knowledge of what someone else might intend to run, throw out the
absolute declaration that "If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium,
then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."

According to you, most Windows 98 users cannot even use 128MB.

Personally, I think 256MB or 380MB is about right for a typical Windows
98 or Millennium system.

You did not make an 'exception' when you posted "If he is using Windows
98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."
I pointed out that it *was* possible to use more than 512 Meg of RAM.

Not without simultaneously running 20 FrontPage designs, 17 Excel
spreadsheets, 300 Photoshop windows, and 150 PowerPoint presentations.

Or something like that, I probably should leave the rhetoric to you.

You now acknowledge 'there are exceptions', meaning my statement is
true, so what the hell are you arguing about?

What are you complaining about?

You simply refuse to listen to what I'm saying.

I've heard every illogical word of it.

And now you've heard what you were saying.

You wrote:

The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'

I immediately explained that there is more to it,

No,

Yes, it's all there.

you immediately tried to claim it wasn't so because there were '2 other
workarounds' that involved disabling or removing the extra RAM

That's your argument. I have been entertaining your argument because you
have been ignoring mine.

and then went into a song and dance about Microsoft 'emphatically
telling the whole word to not use more than 512 Meg of RAM'. Neither of
which make any sense.

That is misquote. If I were you, I would copy and paste.

Your original post was incorrect, period.

Sounds like everything is black and white to you.

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:

snip of asinine gibberish

Summary: You were wrong to say "If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium,
then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."


I disagree.

I have it on the authority of an expert named "John Doe" that there are
indeed programs one can use with Windows98 that can use more than 512 Meg
of RAM.

That means you're wrong.


Windows98 or Millennium can use more than 512MB with the vcache registry
change.


For most people using Windows 98 or Millennium, I would call it coping with
more than 512MB of memory.

The statement in dispute does not say anything about "for most people." It
makes an absolute declaration for ALL people under ALL circumstances and
is, therefor, incorrect.

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


...


I am well aware of the "fixed resource" problem but it has nothing to
do with 512 Meg of RAM.


Sure it does, for the vast majority of users.

No, it doesn't. There is nothing 'special' about 512 Meg of RAM that is
linked to the "fixed resource" issue. That can occur with less RAM, and
more RAM.

Typically, using more memory means you are running more programs.
Running more programs means you're using more resources. The typical
user is going to run out of resources before he (or she) uses 512MB of
RAM in Windows 98 or Millennium.

You just said "before" (512 Meg of RAM). That proves it has nothing to do
with '512 Meg'.

BUt we've already establishes that there ARE things that can use more than
512 Meg of RAM. You, yourself, tossed out photoshop as one example. And it
only takes '1' to make your absolute statement invalid.


Windows 98 and Millennium just weren't designed for more than 512MB of
memory. That's what Windows NT and Windows 2000 were designed for.

What you may think was in the mind of the 'designers' is irrelevant.


It can occur with less RAM and it might not occur with
more RAM; it depends on the applications, their memory usage and the
resources they consume.


Applications typically consume a greater percentage of fixed resources
than they consume of 512MB of RAM. That is my point which you have
inadvertently supported in prior posts.

Logical thought isn't your strong suit. Your original statement is an
absolute but you, yourself, have given an example of an 'exception', as you
call it.

The two cannot both be true. It is impossible for "[the user] won't be able
to use more than 512MB anyway" to be true along with photoshop being a
program the user could use it with.

So, tell me, in which one are you wrong?


Resource memory in Windows 9x is fixed. In order to use a lot of RAM,
like 512MB, one usually runs a lot of programs.

I want to see your poll


Let's take a look at what you were saying in July of 2004.

David Maynard wrote:

Except 128 Meg of RAM is quite nice on Win98SE.


http://tinyurl.com/4o9bq
Message-ID:

David Maynard wrote:

... with 128 meg you're in hog heaven, as long as you don't get too
piggish about it.
And by that I mean it isn't a 'power user' office system; just
relatively mild work use as opposed to some hair-on-fire yahoo editing
3 manuals, replete with embedded pictures, charts, and graphs, while
working with 3 excel spreadsheets, photoshop, a powerpoint
presentation and updating his MS project schedule as he checks meeting
times in Outlook to see if he's gonna make it.


http://tinyurl.com/53jzt
Message-ID:

I guarantee you that if you have the programs you yourself listed right
there open in Windows 98, you'll run out of system resources or at least
come very close. And that in your head was easily doable with 128MB of
RAM, while we are now talking about four times that amount.

I am honored, but as much as I may regret doing so I feel that I must point
out I, being only one person, do not constitute a 'poll' of 'most users'
and obviously not a poll of users who use 512 Meg of RAM as I feel I'm in
hog heaven with 128 Meg.


But if you run a lot of programs, you eat up resource memory. For the
vast majority of users, resource memory will be gone long before they
use 512MB of RAM.

Which, even if true, is irrelevant to your 'absolute' statement. You
didn't say "if he's a typical user" or "it's unlikely" or any other
'vast majority' qualifier. You simple said, nope, won't be able to use
it.


It won't be the last time because I don't have time to explain
everything, so sometimes I use generalizations. I appreciate the
opportunity to elaborate.


There might be exceptions, for example, a Photoshop user might be
willing to run a few additional programs because he or she seriously
needs to use Photoshop and Windows 9x.

Which proves that your original absolute statement


It's not black-and-white.

Oh yes it was. You made no 'exceptions', or explanation for that matter.


"If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use
more than 512MB anyway" is false because you have no idea what he might
care to run on the machine.


A few months ago, you said 128MB of RAM in Windows 98 was "hog heaven" for
a typical user.

What happened?

Nothing happened. It's irrelevant. A non sequitur. That I may think 128 meg
is "hog heaven" says absolutely nothing as to whether 512 Meg can be 'used'
by someone else for whatever reason they may have. Maybe they're a bigger
'hog' in need of a bigger 'heaven' than I am.


In my last years with Windows 9x, I was
often running up against the fixed resource memory problem.
http://tinyurl.com/598b9
http://tinyurl.com/4kc6x
Those two links might help explain what I'm talking about.

I already know what you're talking about. What you can't seem to figure
out is simply because the apps YOU ran hit the limit doesn't mean that
NO ONE can use more than 512 Meg, which you fallaciously assume every
time you just wildly, with no explanation of what you mean by it or
knowledge of what someone else might intend to run, throw out the
absolute declaration that "If he is using Windows 98 or Millennium,
then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."


According to you, most Windows 98 users cannot even use 128MB.

I never said any such thing.

Personally, I think 256MB or 380MB is about right for a typical Windows
98 or Millennium system.

That's nice.

You did not make an 'exception' when you posted "If he is using Windows
98 or Millennium, then he won't be able to use more than 512MB anyway."
I pointed out that it *was* possible to use more than 512 Meg of RAM.


Not without simultaneously running 20 FrontPage designs, 17 Excel
spreadsheets, 300 Photoshop windows, and 150 PowerPoint presentations.

Or something like that, I probably should leave the rhetoric to you.

I don't 'judge' the 'wackiness' of what someone wants to use their RAM for.

You now acknowledge 'there are exceptions', meaning my statement is
true, so what the hell are you arguing about?

What are you complaining about?

I'm 'complaining' about your contradictory and illogical arguments; and the
fact that your original, absolute, claim is incorrect.

You simply refuse to listen to what I'm saying.

I've heard every illogical word of it.

And now you've heard what you were saying.

Yes. I've heard you take what I said out of context and attempt to use it
illogically as part of an irrational argument.


You wrote:


The problem you are probably speaking of is the 512 meg vcache 'bug'

I immediately explained that there is more to it,

No,

Yes, it's all there.

After you went mentally deranged on the MS knowledge base articles.

you immediately tried to claim it wasn't so because there were '2 other
workarounds' that involved disabling or removing the extra RAM


That's your argument. I have been entertaining your argument because you
have been ignoring mine.

The '2 other workarounds' were never 'my argument' and if you think so you
should check the floor because I think your brains must have fallen out.


and then went into a song and dance about Microsoft 'emphatically
telling the whole word to not use more than 512 Meg of RAM'. Neither of
which make any sense.


That is misquote. If I were you, I would copy and paste.

It wasn't a quote, which is why I used single quotes. It does, however,
accurately convey the gist of what you said.

Your original post was incorrect, period.

Sounds like everything is black and white to you.

Only when people make black and white statements like "won't be able to use
more than 512MB anyway."

David Maynard wrote:
John Doe wrote:
David Maynard wrote:

snipped mostly drivel and trolling

Your original post was incorrect, period.

Sounds like everything is black and white to you.

Only when people make black and white statements like "won't be able to
use more than 512MB anyway."

I never said it was black-and-white. There was no emphasis in my
statement. I explained immediately after you questioned me. But you
never relinquished the hold on your original judgment of my statement
even after I explained. It's like your interpretations are the law and
not even the author can make a correction to what you have perceived as
his meaning.







Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!prodigy.net !newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!in.100pro ofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!nerim.net!newsfeeds .phibee.net!nntp-server.pubsub.com!news.moat.net!border2.nntp.dca.g iganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Ram: more vs. speed?
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 03:25:47 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To:
Lines: 247
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:421184

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


snipped mostly drivel and trolling


Your original post was incorrect, period.

Sounds like everything is black and white to you.

Only when people make black and white statements like "won't be able to
use more than 512MB anyway."


I never said it was black-and-white.

I was simply describing your sentence; which is a plain, simple, no
exceptions, statement: "you won't be able to..." It is, by it's nature,
"black-and-white."

There was no emphasis in my
statement.

Whether you whispered it under your breath or made a 40 foot flashing neon
sign doesn't matter to the meaning.

I explained immediately after you questioned me. But you
never relinquished the hold on your original judgment of my statement
even after I explained.

The first thing you did was to argue about the Microsoft workaround, saying
it was "slightly off," and the 'logic' got progressively worse from there.
I was simply responding to the arguments you presented.

What you now say is 'the' explanation you first tossed in with what sounded
like a side comment, saying "For what it's worth. Besides that bug,..."

It's like your interpretations are the law

Oh come on. Just how many ways are there to interpret "won't be able to..."?

and
not even the author can make a correction to what you have perceived as
his meaning.

You are quite right that there can be differences between the words someone
uses visa vie what they meant to say and I have no problem with folks
explaining themselves and/or clarifying things.

What I do have a problem with is someone claiming that the new meaning, by
way of 'explanation', and the old meaning, by way of the words, are the
same thing when they're clearly not.

Btw, I don't consider this an 'argument' but, rather, a discussion about
logic.

Troll.

David Maynard wrote:

Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy. com!prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodig y.com!prodigy.com!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!newsfee d.telus.net!sjc1.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserve r.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Ram: more vs. speed?
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 11:39:50 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To:
Lines: 63
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:421383

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


snipped mostly drivel and trolling


Your original post was incorrect, period.

Sounds like everything is black and white to you.

Only when people make black and white statements like "won't be able to
use more than 512MB anyway."


I never said it was black-and-white.

I was simply describing your sentence; which is a plain, simple, no
exceptions, statement: "you won't be able to..." It is, by it's nature,
"black-and-white."

There was no emphasis in my
statement.

Whether you whispered it under your breath or made a 40 foot flashing neon
sign doesn't matter to the meaning.

I explained immediately after you questioned me. But you
never relinquished the hold on your original judgment of my statement
even after I explained.

The first thing you did was to argue about the Microsoft workaround, saying
it was "slightly off," and the 'logic' got progressively worse from there.
I was simply responding to the arguments you presented.

What you now say is 'the' explanation you first tossed in with what sounded
like a side comment, saying "For what it's worth. Besides that bug,..."

It's like your interpretations are the law

Oh come on. Just how many ways are there to interpret "won't be able to..."?

and
not even the author can make a correction to what you have perceived as
his meaning.

You are quite right that there can be differences between the words someone
uses visa vie what they meant to say and I have no problem with folks
explaining themselves and/or clarifying things.

What I do have a problem with is someone claiming that the new meaning, by
way of 'explanation', and the old meaning, by way of the words, are the
same thing when they're clearly not.

Btw, I don't consider this an 'argument' but, rather, a discussion about
logic.