Re: Breaking the 64MB barrier

Thomas Davis (tadavis@lbl.gov)
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:56:25 -0700

"B. James Phillippe" wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I am aware that passing the "mem=XX" option in LILO overcomes this
> problem; this is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what I'm
> about to ask (for you rapid-reply "RTFM" people).
>
> The question is this: I had a debate with someone about the 64MB+
> memory issue with Linux. Their position is that it's a bug in the kernel,
> and mine was that it was an x86 BIOS limitation. I have two questions:
> 1.) who's right?

a) problem is solved already; only 2.0.35 and lower can't correctly
detect > 64M of RAM

> 2.) How is it that Microsoft is able to deal with this
> without a bootloader option, and we can't?

this simply is not true; I have a friend with a system board that has
128M of ram on, and WinNT 4.0 (with all the patches) only recongizes
64M.

MS's reply?

It's the bios, or the system board. Upgrade!

Thomas

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/