Love4Boobies wrote:
Article deleted. As mentioned by Brynet-Inc, the information is wrong. In addition to that, even the correct information is Windows/DOS specific. Those memory models are just standards accepted by these OSes.
Article undeleted. By a count of this thread I see two votes in favor (you and Brynet) and two against (the OP and raghuk). I There is no majority, let alone consensus.
Also, if you state that the information is factually inaccurate, I need a bit more concrete evidence of the matter, since I couldn't personally find any discrepancies between the page and my own recollections of Turbo C use. Also Brynet never said that the article's facts are off, only displayed doubt of the relevance.
Hence, delete rolled back.
That said, the article does need quite a bit of work to become something more than a boring summation of terms (which ATM is my biggest objection)