[Duo2400] Re: Question for 2400 OSX users

[Larry Friedman]

This is my understanding of how RamDoubler worked (this is from using 
several versions and a bunch of company faqs).

Lets say you have 100 megs of ram. Ram Doubler 8 gave you 300 megs 
(later versions tripled instead of doubled). Now you could only assign 
a program as much ram as you physically had, but, and this is the 
biggie, it no longer mattered that your OS needed 40 megs. You could 
still assign Photoshop 100 megs instead of only 60, and with triple the 
ram you still had 160 left for your other programs. Lets see, SF = 
40mb, Pshop = 100mb, Freehand = 50, Quark = 50 and enough left over for 
Maelstrom, Fetch, Eudora and Newswatcher. Not too shabby for a Mac with 
only 100 megs of ram.

Therefore OSX on a machine with limited resources wouldn't be juggling 
these resources between a greedy system and program(s) but rather 
devote all 100 to the OS and still have a lot left over for other 
tasks. At the very least it would allow you to run Classic and one or 
two other apps efficiently.

The fact that system-bloat didn't cut into my available ram was the 
main reason I started using RD, I no longer had to be frugal with how 
much useless crap was in my SF (bring it on AfterDark). Considering how 
crafty the RD programmers were and how well OSX manages memory I'm sure 
that RamDoubler X would be fantastic for earlier Powerbooks trying to 
run OSX. PS. My 2400 should be arriving friday, I'm very excited.

~ Larry

On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 07:29  PM, Ivan Drucker wrote:

> 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
>
> ----------
> Duo/2400 List, The friendliest place on the Net!
> A listserv for users and fans of Mac subportables.
> FAQ at <http://www.themacintoshguy.com/lists/DuoListFAQ.shtml>
> Be sure to visit Mac2400! <http://www.sineware.com/mac2400>
>
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <DuoList-off at lists.themacintoshguy.com>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to 
> <DuoList-digest at lists.themacintoshguy.com>
> Need help from a real person? Try.  
> <DuoList-request at lists.themacintoshguy.com>
>
> ----------
> Dr. Bott  | 10/100 Ethernet for your 2400 is finally here!
> MPC-100   | <http://www.drbott.com/prod/mpc100.html>
>
>   RoadTools $30 PodiumPad available at Apple retail stores, $20 
> Traveler
>   CoolPad at Staples. Both in white for iBooks at 
> <http://roadtools.com>
>
> Midwest Mac Parts  ][  <http://www.midwestmac.com>
> After-market parts  for Macs.   ][  888-356-1104 ][
>
> MacResQ Specials: LaCie SCSI CDR From $99! PowerBook 3400/200 Only 
> $879!
> Norton AntiVirus 6 Only $19! We Stock PARTS! <http://www.macresq.com>
>