-=> Mike Powell wrote to All <=-

 MP> Once upon a time, I got into a discussion in one of the Windows echos
 MP> regarding the 95 and 98SE versions of Windows and their memory usage.

 MP> IIRC, I was told that 95 will work with up to 96MB RAM, after which any
 MP> more is mostly wasted & not really accessed.  Simularly, IIRC that 98SE
 MP> will only really work with 128MB RAM, after which any more is mostly
 MP> wasted & not really accessed.

 MP> Is this true?  I have a P2-266 machine with 128MB running 98SE.  I
 MP> either have a spare 64MB chip, or a 32MB chip (depending on how I
 MP> configure another system).  Would the machine benefit at all by
 MP> being bumped up another 32MB or 64MB?

 MP> For that matter, will 98SE run fine on a P-200MMX with only 64MB RAM?

1) I don't know of any reason why Win98 (or 95 for that matter) won't work
with RAM larger than 128 MB. Some motherboards (the once-popular Intel TX
chipset for instance) have their own hardware-specific limitations-- the
TX-based boards don't cache RAM beyond 64 MB, for instance, so systems with
larger amounts of memory slow down compared to systems with 64 MB or less.

2) Why not add the RAM and see what happens, and let us all know?

3) 98SE will run fine on a P200MMX with 'only' 64 MB of RAM. In 1998, when
my school was buying new hardware for a computer lab and Win98 was
newly-released, the first 20 systems we bought were P-II-266s... standard
memory configuration was 32 MB. We paid extra to double the RAM to 64 MB...
both Win95B and Win98SE ran fine (and continue to run fine) with that
amount of memory.
 MP> Mike

 MP> ##MMR 2.61(beta).


 MP> --- GTMail 1.26

... Inet mail to: alan at zisman dot ca
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.40