Ram: more vs. speed?

[John Doe]

Yes. Sure does.

So what is wrong with the word "workaround"?

That really settles it, you know. The question was whether windows98 could
work with more than 512 Meg of RAM. Workaround 1: yes. The rest is moot.

You are claiming that because one of the problems is solved (in your opinion), Windows 98 works with more than 512MB of RAM. I disagree.

That there are 2, or a thousand, ways to have it not work is irrelevant as
it's not a 'vote'. One working solution is all it takes.

If it were a working solution to the one problem you think is all there is to making Windows 98 work with 512MB of RAM, then why are the other solutions listed? You admit that removing the extra memory is the most difficult solution, so what's the purpose of listing that solution?

Since the point of having more than 512 Meg of RAM is to use more than 512
Meg of RAM I don't consider those to be 'workarounds', regardless of
Microsoft calling them such, and is why I placed the "(sic)" after the term
up above.


The issue was whether Windows98 could be made to work with more than 512
Meg of RAM and I "like" it because it satisfies the goal.


It doesn't need to 'hint'. In the first place, that's standard practice
and, in the second, it's the one that accomplishes the goal. That's how I
pick solutions.


No, the logic of the order is obvious. The first one solves the problem,

In your opinion, that solves one of the problems with making Windows 98 work with more than 512MB of RAM. If it were a worthwhile solution to one of the problems, someone would figure out exactly what that value should be.

making the extra RAM usable, but requires a registry edit: a thing that
some people are reluctant to do so some alternatives for the squeamish are
in order. The second one is simply checking a box and typing in a number:
simple, easy, and 'safe' but it renders the extra RAM unusable and, while
you can do it 'right away', it's silly to leave the unused RAM in the box
forever. The third one requires opening the box and messing with the hardware.

That's nice, but taking the checkbox to limit usable memory is a whole lot easier than removing the RAM.

You are, no doubt, thanking me for the second link

No, I was thanking you for providing the references.

Hardly.

It is a big fat mass.

You'll notice that 1 GB is not the amount of memory the other poster was
considering.

I also know that 1GB is more than 512MB, that the original poster is using Windows XP, and that the original poster can install and remove RAM.

Try reading the whole thing instead of culling a phrase or two here and
there like you did the last time.

It's an entire paragraph, it's an entire section, it is the whole section under the bold print uppercase word "CAUSE".

... there is a workaround for using [more than 512MB of RAM].

There are at least two workarounds for allowing the extra memory to remain in the system. One of them is an obscure suggestion to limit vCatch memory. The other is to easily disable the extra memory.

If it just plain didn't work or only worked, as you imply, 1/3 of the time
it would be a lot less pain and misery for MS to simply say "don't do it."

Less pain for Microsoft's customers to know that Windows 98 and Millennium can use only 512MB of RAM? I agree, that's one reason the rest of us are here.

In my opinion that's an opinion derived simply for the sake of arguing.

Isn't that what you're doing? My reply was apt, directed towards the original poster, yours was supporting a troll.

You think using Windows 98 with more than 512MB of RAM is a good idea. I don't. Your conclusion is based on what you believe is a solution to one part of the problem. In my experience, that solution is fishy.

No, "shared video memory" is a specific term and does not 'include' AGP.

From the article:
"This problem may occur more readily with Advanced Graphics Port (AGP) video adapters because the AGP aperture is also mapped to addresses in the system arena."

That supports my point that it is a widespread problem, especially nowadays.

The issue was not 'most users', 'typical users', or what you, or I, think
are the apps they should be using.

It is in the context of my post to which you took offense.

The issue was whether Windows98 could work with more than 512 Meg of RAM and the fact of the matter is it can,
with a registry change.

I guess that is semantics on the word "work".

I certainly agree that Windows 98 and Millennium can cope with more than 512MB of RAM installed on the mainboard. But since the original poster (again assuming that he were using Windows 98) can install and remove RAM, there is little or no reason for him to leave the extra memory.

 

[John Doe]

John Doe says...
Anything below 512MB.

Being very technically inclined, I find that difficult to accept. Can you be more specific?

That article was written when RAM cost shitloads.

Which is after Windows 98 was written.

 

[John Doe]

Yes.

Says who?

That is what I've been telling John Doe

What you have been telling me is that what you believe is a solution to
one problem is the solution to the whole problem with making Windows 98
work with more than 512MB of RAM, while you completely ignore other
problems like the fixed resource memory size.

but he keeps insisting on claiming it won't work

I never claimed it wouldn't work, or cope, using your definition. In
fact I stated that in my opinion there might be exceptions.

with selective culling and misreading of the knowledge base articles.

Posting out of context here is an easy way for you to avoid facing the
reality of the knowledge base articles.

My reply was well-suited to the original poster (who as we now know does
not even use Windows 98). Just like the troll you chose to concur with,
you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

 

[John Doe]

I have 768MBytes of ram and Win98SE and it works great.

And some people will argue forever that Windows 98 is more stable than
Windows XP. Everybody has an opinion.

... And yes, win98 will use all of this ram. I have verified this with
SysMon many times.

I have used monitoring tools in Windows at all times since Windows 3.1,
beginning over 10 years ago with what I recall as "cache mon" or
something like that. System Monitor came along with Windows 95. The
problem with using Windows 98 and Windows Millennium with more than
512MB of RAM isn't just RAM, it's also limited resource memory for which
there is no workaround. The problem is that the more programs you have
open, the more resource memory they use (some programs use more than
others), and the sooner a user of Windows 98 runs out of resource
memory. There are likely exceptions I guess like when a user has few
programs running at the same time and one of them uses a whole bunch of
RAM.

Win98 was not designed for 512MBytes maximum

Windows NT and Windows 2000 were not designed for 512MB maximum.

If that were true about Windows 9x, then most users would not run out of
resource memory long before they use 512MB of RAM.

<snipped rest of the beating of a dead horse straw man argument>

 

[David Maynard]

So what is wrong with the word "workaround"?

Should have asked that the first time instead of trying to be 'cute'.

I explained it below in the last message.

You are claiming that because one of the problems is solved (in your opinion),

Not my 'opinion'. It's Microsoft who says it solves the 512 Meg boundary
problem.

Windows 98 works with more than 512MB of RAM. I disagree.

It's not a matter of 'opinion'. The knowledge base article says it fixes
the 512 meg problem.

If it were a working solution to the one problem you think is all there is to making Windows 98 work with 512MB of RAM, then why are the other solutions listed? You admit that removing the extra memory is the most difficult solution, so what's the purpose of listing that solution?

I've already explained that.

In your opinion, that solves one of the problems

It is not my 'opinion'. The knowledge base article flat out gives it as a
solution to THE problem with 512 Meg RAM.

with making Windows 98 work with more than 512MB of RAM. If it were a worthwhile solution to one of the problems, someone would figure out exactly what that value should be.

The rest of that sentence is just absurd illogic.

That's nice, but taking the checkbox to limit usable memory is a whole lot easier than removing the RAM.

Which is why it's number 2.

No, I was thanking you for providing the references.
Whatever.




It is a big fat mass.

ONly to those who can't read.

I also know that 1GB is more than 512MB, that the original poster is using Windows XP, and that the original poster can install and remove RAM.

Good. So you know the second link has nothing to do with the amount of RAM
under discussion.

It's an entire paragraph, it's an entire section, it is the whole section under the bold print uppercase word "CAUSE".

Which is not the whole thing.

If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft
wouldn't be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB of
RAM.

Two problems with that conclusion. The first is, no, recommending it be
removed to fix an otherwise unfixable problem doesn't suggest more than
512 Meg isn't 'useful', if it would WORK, and it would be a heck of a
lot easier for MS to simply say so rather than provide a workaround in
the first article.

Some sellers could not care less, wouldn't know better, and would gladly
install whatever the mainboard can handle.

... there is a workaround for using [more than 512MB of RAM].

There are at least two workarounds for allowing the extra memory to remain in the system.

The objective is not to simply 'leave RAM in the system'.

One of them is an obscure suggestion to limit vCatch memory.

If you don't understand it just say so but it isn't 'obscure' to the rest
of us.

The other is to easily disable the extra memory.

Which is a rather stupid thing to do: install RAM and then disable it. But
if that's your ''pick' then so be it.

Less pain for Microsoft's customers to know that Windows 98 and Millennium can use only 512MB of RAM?

Yes, it would be, if it were true. The fact that there's a solution
provided is proof that it isn't.

I agree, that's one reason the rest of us are here.

What? To pass out faulty information, like you did, that Windows98 can't
work with more than 512 MEg of RAM?

Isn't that what you're doing? My reply was apt, directed towards the original poster, yours was supporting a troll.

I posted the fact that Windows98 can work with more than 512 Meg of RAM,
how it can be done, and the link to prove it. And you've been
misrepresenting the facts ever since.

You think using Windows 98 with more than 512MB of RAM is a good idea. I don't.

I didn't say a thing about whether it was a 'good idea' or not. I simply
pointed out you are wrong when you say Windows98 can't work with more than
512 Meg of RAM.

Your conclusion is based on what you believe is a solution to one part of the problem.

Being able to read plain English when MS publishes a solution is not a
'belief' on my part.

In my experience, that solution is fishy.

But you haven't provided ONE thing to suggest that comment.

From the article:
"This problem may occur more readily with Advanced Graphics Port (AGP) video adapters because the AGP aperture is also mapped to addresses in the system arena."

That is NOT from the "1 gigabyte (GB) or more of random access memory (RAM)
with shared video memory" article.

That supports my point that it is a widespread problem, especially nowadays.

All it 'supports' is that you can't tell one article from another and can't
tell the difference between 512 Meg, 1 Gig, and 1.5 Gig of RAM.

It is in the context of my post to which you took offense.

I didn't 'take offense' at your initial post. I corrected the incorrect
information in it.

I guess that is semantics on the word "work".

Only on your end.

I certainly agree that Windows 98 and Millennium can cope with more than 512MB of RAM installed on the mainboard.

'Cope'... semantics.

It works.

But since the original poster (again assuming that he were using Windows 98) can install and remove RAM, there is little or no reason for him to leave the extra memory.

Unless he wants to use it. And the 512 Meg article shows one how.

 

[David Maynard]

Says who?

Says the person I was replying to who has an actual system with 768 Meg
working, and being used, and explained it in the portion you snipped out
simply for the sake of asking that stupid question.

What you have been telling me is that what you believe is a solution to
one problem is the solution to the whole problem with making Windows 98
work with more than 512MB of RAM,

The 'one problem' is the 'problem' that was under discussion.

while you completely ignore other
problems like the fixed resource memory size.

I didn't ignore it and, in fact, gave you one example of what could use it.
Which, of course, you snipped out just as you snipped out the other posters
explanation that he not only used 768 Meg but had confirmed it and told HOW
he had confirmed it.

I never claimed it wouldn't work, or cope, using your definition. In
fact I stated that in my opinion there might be exceptions.

Your original statement was an unqualified claim that the original poster
would NOT be able to use more than 512 Meg of RAM in Windows98 anyway.

That is not true and you've been making an illogical stink about it ever since.

Posting out of context here is an easy way for you to avoid facing the
reality of the knowledge base articles.

That's knee slapping hilarious coming from you after YOUR snip jobs and
selective quoting.

My reply was well-suited to the original poster (who as we now know does
not even use Windows 98). Just like the troll you chose to concur with,
you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

Your reply to the original poster was simply incorrect, no matter how you
try to spin it now.

 

[John Doe]

Should have asked that the first time instead of trying to be 'cute'.

I was trying to translate your usage of "sic".

Not my 'opinion'. It's Microsoft who says it solves the 512 Meg
boundary problem.

Microsoft says it is a workaround.

It's not a matter of 'opinion'. The knowledge base article says it
fixes the 512 meg problem.

The knowledge base article shows how to cope with more than 512MB of RAM
and Windows 98.

I've already explained that.



It is not my 'opinion'. The knowledge base article flat out gives it as
a solution to THE problem with 512 Meg RAM.

It is a workaround for one problem.

The rest of that sentence is just absurd illogic.
Troll.


Which is why it's number 2.

Leaving RAM sitting in the system is a good thing, in your opinion?

ONly to those who can't read.
Troll.


Good. So you know the second link has nothing to do with the amount of
RAM under discussion.

None of your argument has to do with the operating system under
discussion.

It's an entire paragraph, it's an entire section, it is the whole
section under the bold print uppercase word "CAUSE".

Which is not the whole thing.
And?

If more than 512MB were useful in a Windows 98 system, Microsoft
wouldn't be explicitly telling the world to remove all but 512MB
of RAM.

Two problems with that conclusion. The first is, no, recommending
it be removed to fix an otherwise unfixable problem doesn't suggest
more than 512 Meg isn't 'useful', if it would WORK, and it would be
a heck of a lot easier for MS to simply say so rather than provide
a workaround in the first article.

Some sellers could not care less, wouldn't know better, and would
gladly install whatever the mainboard can handle.

... there is a workaround for using [more than 512MB of RAM].

There are at least two workarounds for allowing the extra memory to
remain in the system.

The objective is not to simply 'leave RAM in the system'.

Two out of three workarounds disagree.

If you don't understand it just say so but it isn't 'obscure' to the
rest of us.

I understand it just fine.

Which is a rather stupid thing to do: install RAM and then disable it.
But if that's your ''pick' then so be it.

It's not my idea.

Yes, it would be, if it were true. The fact that there's a solution
provided is proof that it isn't.

A workaround for one of the problems.

What? To pass out faulty information, like you did, that Windows98
can't work with more than 512 MEg of RAM?

That is your straw man.

I posted the fact that Windows98 can work with more than 512 Meg of
RAM, how it can be done, and the link to prove it.

You posted a workaround for one problem, the only problem you recognize.

And you've been misrepresenting the facts ever since.

Which facts have I misrepresented in your opinion? You have ample
opportunity to dispute the facts.

I didn't say a thing about whether it was a 'good idea' or not.

So you agree that it's a bad idea for most users?

I simply pointed out you are wrong when you say Windows98 can't work
with more than 512 Meg of RAM.

That is your straw man.

Being able to read plain English when MS publishes a solution is not a
'belief' on my part.

Ignoring the rest of the story is one of your solutions.

But you haven't provided ONE thing to suggest that comment.

Anyone who is very technically inclined should know that.

That is NOT from the "1 gigabyte (GB) or more of random access memory
(RAM) with shared video memory" article.

It doesn't have to be.

All it 'supports' is that you can't tell one article from another and
can't tell the difference between 512 Meg, 1 Gig, and 1.5 Gig of RAM.
Troll.


I didn't 'take offense' at your initial post. I corrected the incorrect
information in it.

That is your straw man. Even after I immediately provided you with an
explanation, you persist to pretend I was talking about only one
problem, apparently the only problem you're familiar with.

Only on your end.

Apparently you think that your first interpretation of what someone says
is the final word.

'Cope'... semantics.

How so?

It works.

In your opinion.

Unless he wants to use it. And the 512 Meg article shows one how.

It provides a workaround for one problem. It also says that one should
either disable it or uninstall it. That's not very supportive for the
idea that it is useful.

 

[John Doe]

The 'one problem' is the 'problem' that was under discussion.

Have you ever heard of the fixed resource problem? I've mentioned it
several times in this thread with you. You seem to ignore it and pretend
that the solution to the problem you are familiar with is the solution
to the whole problem.

I didn't ignore it and, in fact, gave you one example of what could use
it.

Of what could use it?

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

Which, of course, you snipped out just as you snipped out the other
posters explanation that he not only used 768 Meg but had confirmed it
and told HOW he had confirmed it.

I plainly stated that there might be exceptions. On Usenet, if there is
an exception, it will find you.

Your original statement was an unqualified claim that the original
poster would NOT be able to use more than 512 Meg of RAM in Windows98
anyway.

That is not true and you've been making an illogical stink about it
ever since.

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

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

I immediately explained that there is more to it, but you cling to your
original interpretation and completely ignore my argument.

That's knee slapping hilarious coming from you after YOUR snip jobs and
selective quoting.

I just try to snip the useless stuff.

Your reply to the original poster was simply incorrect, no matter how
you try to spin it now.

I have been trying to explain ever since you asked.

 

[David Maynard]

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."

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

 

[David Maynard]

Have you ever heard of the fixed resource problem? I've mentioned it
several times in this thread with you. You seem to ignore it and pretend
that the solution to the problem you are familiar with is the solution
to the whole problem.

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

Of what could use it?
Yes.


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 numbers on what is 'usual' for using 512 Meg of RAM
in a Windows98 system.

Not that it matter because I already gave you one example.

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.

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 "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.

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."

I plainly stated that there might be exceptions. On Usenet, if there is
an exception, it will find you.

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.

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

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

I've heard every illogical word of it.

I immediately explained that there is more to it,

No, you immediately tried to claim it wasn't so because there were '2 other
workarounds' that involved disabling or removing the extra RAM 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.

but you cling to your
original interpretation and completely ignore my argument.

I answered that argument the first time you brought it up and every time
since.

I just try to snip the useless stuff.

Hardy har har.

I have been trying to explain ever since you asked.

I didn't 'ask' anything. Your original post was incorrect, period.

 

[John Doe]

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.com!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 <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Ram: more vs. speed?
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:09:11 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
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: <tL%[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <Xns9593BD776B575wisdomfolly@
151.164.30.42> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <10oc345sig1pg38
@corp.supernews.com> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <Xns95944C098127Fwisdomfolly@
151.164.30.42> <[email protected]>

 

[John Doe]

....

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.

I want to see your poll

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

Except 128 Meg of RAM is quite nice on Win98SE.

http://tinyurl.com/4o9bq
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

... 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: <[email protected]>

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.

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.

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?

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?

I've heard every illogical word of it.

And now you've heard what you were saying.

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.

 

[David Maynard]

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.

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.

 

[David Maynard]

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.

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?

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




http://tinyurl.com/4o9bq
Message-ID: <[email protected]>




http://tinyurl.com/53jzt
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

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.

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.




It's not black-and-white.

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

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.

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.

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.

What are you complaining about?

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

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.

Yes, it's all there.

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

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.

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.

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."

 

[John Doe]

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.

 

[David Maynard]

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.

 

[John Doe]

Troll.

Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!sjc1.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Ram: more vs. speed?
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 11:39:50 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
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: <tL%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)
Lines: 63
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:421383



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."


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


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,..."


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


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.