wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:29:06 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

At the time the most RAM I could get to fit in my CF29 was 1mb. Do you
know if any more RAM can be shoved in that sweet little 4 screw water
tight hatch on back side? Or is 1mb still the max for a CF29?

Bob

I'm not sure it can even use a full gig of RAM. I run XP on mine, but
it's really from the age of win 98 as far as speed and other specs.- Hide quoted text -


I stand corrected.... I wrote ...1mb... and should have said 1 Gb. I
guess I had a DOS 3.1 flash back.
Soooo back to my original qustion.... does anyoneknow how to shovel
more than 1 GB or RAM in to a CF 29?


I just figured it as a very common typo. meanwhile, I think I also
answered your question, too. I have since looked up the specs, and I
was correct. It maxes out at less than 1 GB. 768 mb is all it will
do.

The OS I use on my old Tosh laptop is 14 times more elegant than Windows
7. Its called Windows 98.

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:39:09 +0000, Mas Dubh
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:29:06 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

At the time the most RAM I could get to fit in my CF29 was 1mb. Do you
know if any more RAM can be shoved in that sweet little 4 screw water
tight hatch on back side? Or is 1mb still the max for a CF29?

Bob

I'm not sure it can even use a full gig of RAM. I run XP on mine, but
it's really from the age of win 98 as far as speed and other specs.- Hide quoted text -


I stand corrected.... I wrote ...1mb... and should have said 1 Gb. I
guess I had a DOS 3.1 flash back.
Soooo back to my original qustion.... does anyoneknow how to shovel
more than 1 GB or RAM in to a CF 29?


I just figured it as a very common typo. meanwhile, I think I also
answered your question, too. I have since looked up the specs, and I
was correct. It maxes out at less than 1 GB. 768 mb is all it will
do.

The OS I use on my old Tosh laptop is 14 times more elegant than Windows
7. Its called Windows 98.

Bwhahahahahaha! Good one!

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:42:57 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:32:37 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:33:41 -0500, wrote:

I'm not sure it can even use a full gig of RAM. I run XP on mine, but
it's really from the age of win 98 as far as speed and other specs.

Yes but that's all you need for running nav software, checking EMAIL,
browing the web, etc.

Very true. The other advantage is that older, slower computers
generally use less power. I'm glad it has enough poop to run XP,
though. Its a lot more solid than 98 ever was.

I still miss the 3.11 virus. I got to where I could reformat and
install windoze and nutscrape in less than an hour.

Casady

On 3/9/10 9:44 AM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:42:57 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:32:37 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:33:41 -0500, wrote:

I'm not sure it can even use a full gig of RAM. I run XP on mine, but
it's really from the age of win 98 as far as speed and other specs.

Yes but that's all you need for running nav software, checking EMAIL,
browing the web, etc.

Very true. The other advantage is that older, slower computers
generally use less power. I'm glad it has enough poop to run XP,
though. Its a lot more solid than 98 ever was.

I still miss the 3.11 virus. I got to where I could reformat and
install windoze and nutscrape in less than an hour.

Casady


The new Mac laptops allegedly run up to eight hours on a single charge,
and don't pull much current if you leave them plugged
in...unfortunately, I haven't found a "lite" nav package that runs under
the Mac OS, but...it's easy enough to switch into Windoze and run any of
'em.

--