|
To tell the truth, I honestly expected it to roll over and die with that amount of RAM, but away it went, upgraded itself, and told me all was right with the world.
I am still going to up it to 8MB (maximum it will take, I think), though.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's safe to say you mean GB, not MB.
|
|
|
|
|
If you insist I suppose I must agree.
|
|
|
|
|
Post screenshots. I've love to see it operate with "megabytes" of RAM rather than gigabytes.
|
|
|
|
|
Good to know! Clean or upgrade?
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Upgrade. No hiccups whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My installation took less than 20 minutes.
Having said that, I notice how disturbing it sounds. In the past people argued how much bigger they were than others. Now it is "mine is shorter than yours".
(I was cheating anyway, VM on SSD, installing from ISO image)
|
|
|
|
|
Mine took 45 minutes on an SSD as a Microsoft update/upgrade.
|
|
|
|
|
My upgrade came through this afternoon and I've gone from 7 to 10 and it was super simple.
I spent some time getting used to 8.1 on the laptop so the shock wouldn't be too bad when 10 arrived, but I have to say: so far I'm really, really liking Windows 10. I hoped (prayed) it would be better than 8.1 (anything is better than 8 - in fact 8 pushed me to MacOS) but I think they've recovered nicely.
Well done, Microsoft.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
8 was a continuation of ME and Vista. Although 10 is much better, I don't like the extra spaces in Edge menus and a few other things. I do like the copy and paste for multiple sessions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately?
Anyways what was the point of this, being in the lounge anyway.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Is it a mistake to post it here?
If you are not interesting in something like this just skip it
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: a technical discussion
Then it should be in a discussion forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Where? I will delete and move
And you organize that "Technical discussions are encouraged" disapears
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
The question has been posted and answered too many times already. The explanation can be found by Google if you really care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
42, half of.
Will be interesting to see whether there's any variation of results among all of these:
VS 2015, 2013, 2010, 2008, 2005, 2003, VC 6, VC 4 VC 1.5 (16-bit), GCC, cc (on iOS Yosemite downwards), Unix compilers (all flavours over the years), cc (on Linux over the years), ...
But, the big question - who will do such a test? Which of these compilers gives wrong results?
|
|
|
|
|
You are so right! But in case you have to write the Parser how you do it?
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Writing a parser - not me.
Too tough for a 50 year old educated in Mechanical Engineering
|
|
|
|
|
Avijnata wrote: Which of these compilers gives wrong results?
All the results are correct.
I can pass it through HP C and Borland C/C++
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this info. Still as a "Parser" it is still hard to decide
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on the language.
C: no expectation.
C++: no expectation.
C#: 21
Java: 21, I think?
|
|
|
|
|
C: no expectation
I think for C the case is most clear, no Operator "++" or "--" existed, so White spaces have been simply skipped.
Thanks for your Response.
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|