Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Talking about Vee Duckegg, how is yer Pats?
I thought this thread was RIP Vera Duckworth?
@forumhostpb wrote:
@sword wrote:
Whatever PB.
I didn’t type a word …. this is SOOOOOO unfair !!!
Don’t do dark blue in bold either… I would say when will you learn PB… but I think I need to say, when will they learn.
@dead_on_arrvial wrote:
Sword doesn’t know what ram does and how it works, what a moron.
Very flattering, go back to school gay boy
Whatever PB.
I’m not here to go before your trial fella, I’m merely stating a fact regarding ram and XP downwards. If you cannot work out for yourself that you can have ‘redundant’ ram when the capabilities of an OS system won’t recognise above it’s limit, it is not me that needs a crash course in the simplicities of a computers hardware v software. Go back to googling.
That is probably (or prolly) the biggest load of tosh I have ever seen for an excuse to wriggle out of your initial advice to ram up to 4gb. You deserve a medal my son. Redundant ram does NOT conflict with software! If it wasn’t so sad it would be laughable.
There is NOT a pc specialist in this country (unless he’s a crook) that will offer you 4gb of RAM with XP and downwards… the software does not accept it, it’ll run you a maximum of 2gb leaving the other 2gb redundant. The speed of a pc’s hardware is dependent on the software it is running, and if that software specifies a cut off point then that is all you will get… it really isn’t rocket science.
I think you are still going off on a tangent for something that is blatantly obvious… OS systems up to and including XP do NOT support 4gb of RAM!
