Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Umm, didn't we leave this behind with OS9?' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Umm, didn't we leave this behind with OS9?
Authored by: themostbob on Aug 28, '03 11:36:18AM

WTF? "System Instability"?!?!? Why the hell should any instability be the result? Disk thrashing, sure. That I understand, but crashing? Why would this be excusable?



[ Reply to This | # ]
instability
Authored by: hayne on Aug 28, '03 01:18:08PM

"instability" does not equate to "crashing"
I think Adobe merely means that it would be a bad idea - would result in excessive disk activity due to swapping etc.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Umm, didn't we leave this behind with OS9?
Authored by: Greenfruit on Aug 28, '03 02:36:24PM

..and why give the option of 75%+ if it causes problems?!?! just stop at 75% and call it 100% or Lots or something

---
http://www.greenfruit.net/ - mysite | http://www.somefoolwitha.com/ - blog
"Coming up, I'll tell you exactly what to think." Chris Morris, Brass Eye
-iBook/G4



[ Reply to This | # ]
Umm, didn't we leave this behind with OS9?
Authored by: Mark Secker on Aug 28, '03 09:29:03PM

Unix manages memory and process priority better than classic but still allows users & programs to overide default allocation (indead one of my first open systems classes they showed us how to use these to kill unix stone dead)
Anyways....
Actually I run Photoshop at 80% with no problem, ever (touch wood) - that said my PB has 1GB RAM and my work desktop has almost 2GB RAM so 20% left for system is still a truck load of memory in anyones book.



[ Reply to This | # ]