> I am afraid that this is not a correct assumption. Different OSes has
> different way of allocating/using memory. Probably it's just lucky that
> Ubuntu had not touched the bad memory block. --SS
I most certainly concede "perhaps", as I definitely don't know what
I'm talking about with any certainty.
I find "probably" too strong a word, though.
You see, I'm a memory hog and find myself regularly forcing Ubuntu to
swap if I'm in a system with less than 2GB of memory.
I played memory-intense 3-D games (Nexuiz, anyone?) and routinely ran
the GIMP on many large photos at once, while keeping Firefox open with
my customary zillion tabs.
If Ubuntu didn't touch the bad memory blocks, I find design more
probable than luck.
Though I do concede that I don't really know what I'm talking about.
Simón
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
No comments:
Post a Comment