5 ms·
There is no direct correlation between the size of an executable (64kb) and the size of the RAM usage (can be hundreds of MB). I could not find any information
by AdrianB1 7y ago
There is no direct correlation between the size of an executable (64kb) and the size of the RAM usage (can be hundreds of MB). I could not find any information about the total memory usage of the application, is it described anywhere?
- amiga-workbench 7y agoIts running on a ThinkPad 390e, 64mb as standard, and tops out at 256mb, so there is your upper bound. Even at an absolute worst case it still beats the pants off Slack.
- yeokm1 7y agoYou are correct. My 390E has 384MB of RAM but only 256MB is accessible by Win 3.1. An earlier blog post shows this http://yeokhengmeng.com/2016/09/windows-for-workgroups-3-11-on-vintage-and-modern-hardware-in-2016/ http://yeokhengmeng.com/2016/09/windows-for-workgroups-3-11-...
- StavrosK 7y agoAnd is probably quite a bit faster, too.
- cwyers 7y agoIt's also lacking so many features as to be unusable.
- yeokm1 7y agoWin 3.1 apps can also access memory in 64K segments which I only use 1 to hold the humongous HTTP+JSON reply from Slack. Wikipedia says "However, no single process can use more than 16 MB.". Not sure where is the source of that though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tinus_hn 7y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode It’s a limitation from the 286 Protected Mode.