[Duo2400] Re: Question for 2400 OSX users

[Ivan Drucker]

I'm assuming you were kidding about this, but indeed there'd be no reason 
for Ram Doubler X. Ram Doubler worked by taking advantage of RAM that was 
reserved for a given application but not being used, due to 9's woefully 
inefficient memory management. So like if Word was set to use 8,000K, but 
6,000 of that was sitting around unused, RAM Doubler would give it to 
another application.

In X, which has far more modern memory management, you'd never need 
something like that; applications don't reserve memory for themselves in 
the same way. Further, unlike the 9 model, there is no formal memory 
limit; you can launch applications forever and you'll never get an out of 
memory error. It's just that all the VM thrashing will bring your machine 
to a crawl. And for that reason, you're right that even with 112 MB 
Classic is a no go. (I'd say 256 MB is a bare minimum for Classic use.)

Ivan.

----------------

>OSX wants as much memory as you can give it, with apps being 
>fundamentally larger then in 9 it makes sense to give it as much ram as 
>possible. If you can afford it, do it, but you still won't have enough 
>to run Classic. Makes you wonder if Connectix will write Ram Doubler X.
>
>~ Larry