Dan P nous apporta ses lumieres ainsi en ce 2004/03/31 20:31... :

> St. wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>>> AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1800+
>>> 1.54 GHz
>>> 512 MB RAM
>>> Windows XP: 2002 SP 1
>>
>>
>>
>>   Thanks Dan. I thought it might have been a lot longer than that, but
>> to say the least for a scene like that, that's fast.
>>
>>   Was it the 1.54GHz or the 512Mb RAM that aided this, do you think?
>> Or both? I feel your image would have taken considerably more time on
>> my m/c. (I have 600MHz and 384Mb RAM, win98SE, Duron mb.).
>
>
> Probably the memory :-) I have souped-up memory in this thing because 
> it used to be a gaming box.
>
Using win98, any flavour, you can't benefit from more RAM, and may 
actualy get crashes if you go 512Mb or more. You get benefits up 
to128Mb, then you hit a plateau up to 256. After that, you LOOSE 
performances as you add more memory. Crapy memory management.
Those figures where about half lower on win95.

Alain

Post a reply to this message