Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:56:25 -0700 | From | Thomas Davis <> | Subject | Re: Breaking the 64MB barrier |
| |
"B. James Phillippe" wrote: > > Greetings, > > I am aware that passing the "mem=XX" option in LILO overcomes this > problem; this is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what I'm > about to ask (for you rapid-reply "RTFM" people). > > The question is this: I had a debate with someone about the 64MB+ > memory issue with Linux. Their position is that it's a bug in the kernel, > and mine was that it was an x86 BIOS limitation. I have two questions: > 1.) who's right?
a) problem is solved already; only 2.0.35 and lower can't correctly detect > 64M of RAM
> 2.) How is it that Microsoft is able to deal with this > without a bootloader option, and we can't?
this simply is not true; I have a friend with a system board that has 128M of ram on, and WinNT 4.0 (with all the patches) only recongizes 64M.
MS's reply?
It's the bios, or the system board. Upgrade!
Thomas
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |