Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

["Steve Greenbank" <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>]

Rather perversely the more you have the more likely you will not have a
program hogging enough memory to block the file cache from growing too big.

Upgrading to Win2K is an expensive solution if it is not necessary.

Rather perversely the more you have the more likely you will not have a
program hogging enough memory to block the file cache from growing too big.

Further, in my experience of Win NT 4.0 the claimed reliability of desktop
PC's is a fallacy. At work I have used around a dozen PC's and all have been
much less reliable than my home PCs on Win9x.

This quite possibly as a lot to do with the skill of the person who set them
up :-)

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "B. Twieg" <btwieg@sonic.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 2:40 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> I had 512 MB RAM and upgraded to 1GB with Win Me and it didn't work well.
It
> recognized the 1GB, but I got a lot of crashes.
>
> After I switched to Win 2K, all is well and the 1 GB memory is definitely
> helpful in Photoshop even with the 100MB images from 35mm scans. Less
> switching to the scratch disk after a lot of history states.
>
> Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Raphael Bustin
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:47 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> At 11:42 AM 7/27/01 +1000, Julian wrote:
>
> >I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or
RAM
> >is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.
>
>
> Buy it anyway.  It's never been cheaper.  Sooner or
> later it'll come in handy.  Maybe use it in another
> PC in the meantime.
>
>
> rafe b.
>
>
>