Prev: SysAdmin from a smartphone
Next: She kissed me
From: RayLopez99 on 4 Jun 2010 05:08
On Jun 4, 3:27 am, philo <ph...(a)privacy.net> wrote:

>
> total bull
>
> Win2k will not run with just 26 megs of RAM...
> even with 64 megs it would be too slow to be useful

Just checked...it's exactly (says the BIOS) 49152 KB RAM, or 49 MB.
And it worked in Windows 2000.

Cockroach to philo: EAT ME.

RL
From: RayLopez99 on 4 Jun 2010 05:24
On Jun 4, 12:16 pm, Marti van Lin <ml2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Indeed, RetardedLunatic99 is a habitual liar, and a fraud like all his
> fellow Microsoft PR Agents.

What? You crazy ucker. You think MSFT would risk being found out
employing trolls? You stupid or what? Conspiracy behind every tree,
eh loon?

>
> He claimed to be a millionaire at the age of 25.

I was. So?

>
> Now please explain what sense it makes that a millionaire would even
> bother with such an ancient piece of junk.
>

Because millionaires pinch pennies too idiot. If you lived around
them you'd know that they all don't spend all their money on luxury
goods.

> The only thing that might work on it is FreeDOS:
>
> http://www.freedos.org

Why? It was running Windows NT and 2000 just fine. Why switch to
FreeDOS, a non-GUI?

>
> Yet I bet that's way to complicated for RetardedLunatic99.
>

Logic is not your forte.

RL
From: philo on 4 Jun 2010 06:26
On 06/04/2010 04:08 AM, RayLopez99 wrote:
> On Jun 4, 3:27 am, philo<ph...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> total bull
>>
>> Win2k will not run with just 26 megs of RAM...
>> even with 64 megs it would be too slow to be useful
>
> Just checked...it's exactly (says the BIOS) 49152 KB RAM, or 49 MB.
> And it worked in Windows 2000.
>


First off

you lied

you said it had 26 megs of ram

now you've changed the number to 49 megs


Though I am sure Win2k will eventually load with that amount of ram
it's essentially unusable...
especially considering a virus checker is required.

I've set up hundreds of win2k machines and 128 megs is the minimum
needed to actually have a "functional" machine
From: RayLopez99 on 4 Jun 2010 11:53
On Jun 4, 1:26 pm, philo <ph...(a)privacy.net> wrote:

> First off
>
> you lied
>
> you said it had 26 megs of ram
>
> now you've changed the number to 49 megs
>
> Though I am sure Win2k will eventually load with that amount of ram
> it's essentially unusable...
> especially considering a virus checker is required.
>
> I've set up hundreds of win2k machines and 128 megs is the minimum
> needed to actually have a "functional" machine

Shutup shiite bag. See my answer to Mike Easter.

What you here for, net nanny? You're not helping anybody.

RL
From: Mike Easter on 4 Jun 2010 12:50
RayLopez99 wrote:

> Just checked...it's exactly (says the BIOS) 49152 KB RAM, or 49 MB.
> And it worked in Windows 2000.

I have a machine whose bios (sometimes) 'lies' about the ram -- if it is
hardware reset the bios reports differently/variably - sometimes it sees
all of the sticks, sometimes it doesn't.

Your ram report is not believable. You should look at the slot sticks,
re-run the bios POST some more times, or use some other ram reader.

And/Or while you have the case open to look at the sticks and slots, you
should pull your ram and clean and/or seat its fingers better.

--
Mike Easter
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: SysAdmin from a smartphone
Next: She kissed me