memory addressing in 2k

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup_deployment (More info?)

Another tech told me that because of different memory addressing schemes
between 98 and 2k, that an SDRAM stick that was burned in on a 98 machine
probably wont run correct on a 2k machine if it is a flaky brand. I am A+
and Network+ certified and have never heard of such a thing. Is there any
truth to this. It makes no logical sense to me, knowing that physical
addressing has nothing to due with system addressing (I think.)

Any comments?

Thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup_deployment (More info?)

Good SDRAM stick will work on both Win95 and Win9x.
However, I did have experience (in the past) where I got blue screen when
installing Win2000. The system worked well on Win9x before. It indeed turned
out to be faulty SDRAM stick. I attribute this behaviour to Win2000 being
more demanding and driving system components at higher speed than Win9x.
Addressing schemes have nothing to do with it because you can install
multiple OS's on the same physical system.

Dusko Savatovic

"Wayne A Lewis" <walewis@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:6fmdnf_rJoltFSjdRVn-hg@bresnan.com...
> Another tech told me that because of different memory addressing schemes
> between 98 and 2k, that an SDRAM stick that was burned in on a 98 machine
> probably wont run correct on a 2k machine if it is a flaky brand. I am A+
> and Network+ certified and have never heard of such a thing. Is there any
> truth to this. It makes no logical sense to me, knowing that physical
> addressing has nothing to due with system addressing (I think.)
>
> Any comments?
>
> Thanks
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup_deployment (More info?)

Can you explain how the win 2k OS could be more demanding on hardware, or
where I can get his info?

Thanks



"Dusko Savatovic" <savatovic.removespam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uW%23lgz$QEHA.1160@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Good SDRAM stick will work on both Win95 and Win9x.
> However, I did have experience (in the past) where I got blue screen when
> installing Win2000. The system worked well on Win9x before. It indeed
turned
> out to be faulty SDRAM stick. I attribute this behaviour to Win2000 being
> more demanding and driving system components at higher speed than Win9x.
> Addressing schemes have nothing to do with it because you can install
> multiple OS's on the same physical system.
>
> Dusko Savatovic
>
> "Wayne A Lewis" <walewis@bresnan.net> wrote in message
> news:6fmdnf_rJoltFSjdRVn-hg@bresnan.com...
> > Another tech told me that because of different memory addressing schemes
> > between 98 and 2k, that an SDRAM stick that was burned in on a 98
machine
> > probably wont run correct on a 2k machine if it is a flaky brand. I am
A+
> > and Network+ certified and have never heard of such a thing. Is there
any
> > truth to this. It makes no logical sense to me, knowing that physical
> > addressing has nothing to due with system addressing (I think.)
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup_deployment (More info?)

Wayne A Lewis wrote:
> Can you explain how the win 2k OS could be more demanding on hardware, or
> where I can get his info?

Hi Wayne,

The guys are right. Win2k is much more fussy about hardware than
Win95/98. This is a good thing. If you really want to look into why,
you'll need to look at the history of NT4.

--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup_deployment (More info?)

Thanks


"Gerry Hickman" <gerry666uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OMUN8PPREHA.556@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Wayne A Lewis wrote:
> > Can you explain how the win 2k OS could be more demanding on hardware,
or
> > where I can get his info?
>
> Hi Wayne,
>
> The guys are right. Win2k is much more fussy about hardware than
> Win95/98. This is a good thing. If you really want to look into why,
> you'll need to look at the history of NT4.
>
> --
> Gerry Hickman (London UK)