Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 11:13:51 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Arthur <arfa AT clara DOT net>
cc: DJGPP Mailing List <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: This is not a problem but...
In-Reply-To: <018001bda453$6e343d00$364e08c3@arthur>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980701111007.12487H-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Arthur wrote:

> >The size of the disk cache in Windows 95 is dynamically changed to fit
> >the needs.  For example, on my machine (with 64MB of physical RAM),
> >the cache size is usually between 15MB and 25MB, depending on what I'm
> >doing at that moment.
> 
> What sort of things do you do to get the cache file that big?

Nothing special, really: editing, compilation, etc.  What do I care how 
large is the cache, if Windows shrinks it when some program requests more 
memory that is physically available.

> I, along with
> many others, have noticed that Win 95's memory management is, to be frank,
> crap. I've decided to save up and get NT 5 'cos it will do everyday work
> (including it's memory management functions) so much better than 95/98.

It would be interesting to know what brought you to this conclusion, 
where did you see the crappy memory management in Windows 9X, and how NT 
is better, exactly.  Maybe you love systems that won't run in less than 
48MB without swapping (which is what NT needs)?