Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 26 May 2001 15:39:43 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
What confuses me is that if, as others have said, system resources is a set
amount of RAM specifically for that, then the percentage of resources it
takes up should go down as the amount of RAM goes up. For instance, if
Windows takes a certain amount of memory for system resources like 10 Mb,
that is a bigger percentage of 128 Mb than it is of 256 Mb. It would be
approximately 7% of 128 Mb and about 3.5% of 256 Mb. On my machine I've
noticed that the more RAM I have the bigger chunk of it is used. When I had
64 Mb it would show 86% of system resources free. With 256 Mb I often see
77% free. The math involved here does not compute. I have a friend with an
old 486 running Win 95 with 16 Mb of RAM. I have seen hers show nearly 90%
free. It looks like Windows uses less resources when there are fewer
available. Her computer is slower than sucking molasses through a straw in
January, but it doesn't set aside a lot of system resources. Given what
I've seen it looks like Windows sets aside a percentage of available RAM for
system resources rather than a fixed amount, or maybe not.
Subject: Re: [PCBUILD] Adding RAM
System resources is a set amount of ram set aside specifically for
system resources and it's size doesn't change regardless of the amount
of ram you have installed.
Demetri Kolokotronis wrote:
> I upgraded from 128M to 256M RAM. "System Resources" was 78 percent
> "free", before and after. Should this have changed? 256M RAM is
> recognized by system.
>
> Demetri Kolokotronis
The NOSPIN Group Promotions is now offering
Mandrake Linux or Red Hat Linux CD sets along
with our NOSPIN Power Linux CD... at a great price!!!
http://freepctech.com/goodies/promotions.shtml
|
|
|