Is it true that...

[ClockerDude]

Windows NT 4 chews up half of the amount of RAM you have, no matter how much you have? Just wondering, because i heard that from one of my friends.

[FlyingPenguin]

An innacurate statement.

The way any NT OS works is VERY different from Win 9.x OSes.

Unlike Win98 which doesn't effectively make use of memory over 128Mb, NT/2K/XP will use as memory as you can throw at it and use it more effectively to improve the performance of the desktop.

All NT OSes will assign a good chunk of the available memory to operations normally performed in the paging file (swap file) to improve performance. So if you have a lot of memory in an NT OS, and your apps don't need it all at the moment, then yes NT will use if to maintain optimal system performance (preventing the use of the paging file for instance which if a big performance hit).

But it's not fair to say that NT will just steal half your ram right from the top. This is a dynamic process and as applications demand more memory, NT allocates it as needed in as efficient a manor as possible.

You can always bring up the task manager to see how much of your physical memory is being used by the system. This is displayed as the Total Commit.


NT also requires FAR less memory than 2K or XP. NT was written back in the 486 era, and as such a Win NT Workstation or even Server system runs VERY smoothly with a mere 64Mb in it, although more would be recommended.

I love putting NT Workstation on old laptops - runs so much smoother than Win98 (as long as you don't need USB and you can find drivers).

[ClockerDude]

Thanks for your info, FlyingPenguin. I had never really thought that NT would just chew up half of my RAM like that, however, for some reason, it isn't using my VRAM effectively. Back when I had my 486, in the Windows 95 days, I was able to get a resolution of 800x600 pixels at 256 colours on my old TsengLabs ET4000. However, under NT on my P166, i can only get a res of 640x480 @ 16 or 256 colours. Hopefully though, this won't be an issue soon...i have a source for a 1 meg Cirrus Logic PCI video card.

P.S: I second what you say about Windows 98. For some reason that thing really doesn't like me too much. Besides, Windows 95 OSR2, IMHO is more stable and faster on older machines.

[FlyingPenguin]

Sounds like you have the wrong driver installed, or else it's a very old vid card with very little memory.

[ClockerDude]

I have the right driver installed...i KNOW that that card is an ET4000. Its an old ISA board, but still, I don't know why NT would stop me from being able to run it at 800x600..it worked fine in Windows 95b.

PS: The TsengLabs board mentioned above only has 512k of VRAM...hopefully my Cirrus Logic will have more.