Posted by AnthonyR on 11/15/05 04:18

"Jona Vark" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
news:Kk4ef.27117$6e1.16863@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Hcydf.21692$u43.5608@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>
>> "Jona Vark" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
>> news:ZrKcf.15054$q%.7237@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > I have been designing and building computers since about '78. No that's
>> > not
>> > how they work. Memory is not necessarily allocated from the bottom up.
> At
>> > any point you can be using any portion of memory. The assertion that
> some
>> > program will 'tax' a computer more than others is an analogy to
> mechanical
>> > devices that isn't relevant.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> OK you made me question myself for a second, lol
>> I did a quick google and found this page:
>> http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1565
>>
>>
>
> yes.. note the reasons the site gives for bad memory. None actually have
> anything to do with the memory itself. So actually accessing memory is not
> the reason memory fails. Hence the entire idea of 'taxing' a system is
> invalid.
>
>
Correct! I never stated accessing memory taxes the memory and causes it to
fail, on the contrary
failing memory can be detected when memory intensive programs tax the
memory.
That's what i meant, not that you would damage good memory by using it.
I think maybe you misunderstood me.
Thanks for the replies.
AnthonyR.

[Back to original message]