phil1 Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Hi I tried to create the concordance of the kjv shown on the video demo but keeps saying I need more memory. Ihave already tried up to 1400 mb in the basiliskII gui and it still complains. The kjv is the only window open. What am I doing wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Brown Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 The Basilisk GUI certainly doesn't need that much memory, I'm sure 512 megs is plenty. Are you sure Accordance itself has enough memory? Select the main Accordance application (Accordance 8.2.3.68k) and do File -> Get Info. Set the 'Preferred Size' to at least 50000K to give it plenty of memory. You could even set it higher. Let me know if this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil1 Posted July 18, 2009 Author Share Posted July 18, 2009 The Basilisk GUI certainly doesn't need that much memory, I'm sure 512 megs is plenty. Are you sure Accordance itself has enough memory? Select the main Accordance application (Accordance 8.2.3.68k) and do File -> Get Info. Set the 'Preferred Size' to at least 50000K to give it plenty of memory. You could even set it higher. Let me know if this helps. That worked thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpkang Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 It's funny to me that the emulator can virtually address more RAM than Macs ten years ago could physically hold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Mansfield Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 It's funny to me that the emulator can virtually address more RAM than Macs ten years ago could physically hold! I think it shows that the OS was capable of it, but the hardware back then was not. Even now, current hardware is held back memory-wise, merely by the largest memory chips in production. However, reading this thread makes me really thankful that for those of us on Macs, we no longer have to tweak the memory settings for individual programs. When I moved from Windows to Macs in 1998 I felt that necessity for some programs was especially lame, although the experience was better overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Brown Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Even now, current hardware is held back memory-wise, merely by the largest memory chips in production. Thats actually not entirely true. Both the Mac and Windows have been making good strides towards being fully 64-bit, but as long as you are running a 32-bit system, the maximum amount of RAM that can be directly accessed is only 4 gigabytes. (only!) I'm not an expert as to what level of 64-bit is required to go above that, because you have 32bit and 64bit processors, 32bit and 64bit OSes, and such, but you do have a pretty hard limit there. The RAM limitation is (IIRC) one of the biggest reasons for the push towards 64-bit addressing. This shouldn't be a problem again for a while, as the new physical limit is 17.2 billion gigabytes, or 16 exabytes. I think this will last us a few years at least! Sorry, this is off topic, but I felt it interesting enough to reply to. If someone knows the details and implementations of 64 bit better than I do and wants to correct/clarify, please go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Mansfield Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Thats actually not entirely true. Both the Mac and Windows have been making good strides towards being fully 64-bit, but as long as you are running a 32-bit system, the maximum amount of RAM that can be directly accessed is only 4 gigabytes. (only!) I'm not an expert as to what level of 64-bit is required to go above that, because you have 32bit and 64bit processors, 32bit and 64bit OSes, and such, but you do have a pretty hard limit there. The RAM limitation is (IIRC) one of the biggest reasons for the push towards 64-bit addressing. This shouldn't be a problem again for a while, as the new physical limit is 17.2 billion gigabytes, or 16 exabytes. I think this will last us a few years at least! Sorry, this is off topic, but I felt it interesting enough to reply to. If someone knows the details and implementations of 64 bit better than I do and wants to correct/clarify, please go ahead. Yes, I was thinking about 64-bit systems, particularly the upcoming Snow Leopard, in this regard. From Apple's website: Today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.