At 10:14 AM 9/9/2007, you wrote:
>   You're comparing apples and oranges.

On the contrary, he was comparing apples and oranges. The quoted 
text, and your reply have nothing to do with the original question, 
and/or the statement he made, that I replied to.

The original question was about physical RAM, and my original reply 
was in reference to Tony's statement that going above 2GB of physical 
RAM in XP was <mathematically impossible>. I posted writing that he 
was incorrect as the physical ram limit for Windows 2000 was 2GB 
while the XP PRO's is 3.25 GB.

He responded by quoting the MS article about virtual addressing which 
is not relevant to this thread. I responded by posting the 
information I did to bring the discussion back to the original 
question, and to prove my point. Changing the discussion to virtual 
addressing doesn't make us both right. His original statement is 
still incorrect.

Rode
The NOSPIN Group
http://www.freepctech.com/rode/ 

        The NOSPIN Group has added a new feature on our website,
           web based bulletinboard for questions and answers:
              Visit our sister website at http://nospin.com