22 Nov
2012
22 Nov
'12
6:47 a.m.
On 21 November 2012 11:54, Joost van de Griek <gyorpb at gmail.com> wrote:
On 20 Nov 2012, at 23:02 , Jules Richardson
<jules.richardson99 at gmail.com> wrote:
The #CPUs limit is artificial. The RAM one is not, inasmuch as W2K was
only ever 32-bit (and XP vastly predominantly 32-bit) and without PAE
a 32-bit x86 OS can only address 4GB of memory address space.
Why XP still wants 3-4GB of pagefile on a machine with 3-4GB of RAM,
therefore, is left as an exercise for the reader. :?)
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
There are probably cases of certain OSes refusing
to run because the host platform has _too much_ RAM, but I'm struggling to think of
any right now.
Different versions of Windows 2000 have (artificial) limitations on the maximum hardware
specs: Workstation supports up to two CPU's and four GB of RAM, Server handles up to
four CPU's, Advanced Server up to eight CPU's and eight GB of RAM, and Datacenter
Server supports up to 32 CPU's and 64 GB RAM.
I strongly suspect these limitations are in fact artificial, since Win2K Workstation will
support four CPU's on the SiliconGraphics Visual Workstation 540 if it is installed as
an upgrade over the SGI-specific four-CPU install of NT4.