XPost: alt.folklore.computers   
   From: admin@127.0.0.1   
      
   On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 01:39:14 -0000 (UTC)   
   Lawrence D'Oliveiro  wrote:   
      
   > On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 14:06:17 -0700, Stephen Fuld wrote:   
   >   
   > > ... I recall an issue with Windows NT where it initially divided the   
   > > 4GB address space in 2 GB for the OS, and 2GB for users. Some users   
   > > were "running out of address space", so Microsoft came up with an   
   > > option to reduce the OS space to 1 GB, thus allowing up to 3 GB for   
   > > users. I am sure others here will know more details.   
   >   
   > That would have been prone to breakage in poorly-written programs that   
   > were using signed instead of unsigned comparisons on memory block sizes.   
   >   
   > I hit an earlier version of this problem in about the mid-1980s, trying to   
   > help a user install WordStar on his IBM PC, which was one of the earliest   
   > machines to have 640K of RAM. The WordStar installer balked, saying he   
   > didn’t have enough free RAM!   
   >   
   > The solution: create a dummy RAM disk to bring the free memory size down   
   > below 512K. Then after the installation succeeded, the RAM disk could be   
   > removed.   
      
   I recall the time our DOS-based install disks (network boot and re-image a   
   PC from a server) failed. It was the first time we'd seen a PC with 4G (I   
   think) of RAM, DOS was wrapping addressed memory and overwriting the   
   running batch file!   
      
   --   
   Bah, and indeed Humbug.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)