>>>>>>>I have been of the assumption that there is little or no gain in performance for Windows 95 with RAM over 64mb. I can't remember where I first heard this. Does anyone know of any proof either for or against this assumption?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Evan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At home I have K6-200 PC. About 8 months ago I upgraded RAM from 32MB to 160MB and perfomance went up significantly. I can tell it, especially when I have several applications (IE, OutlExpr) open.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you reduce the memory to 64megs, is the performance the same?
>>>>
>>>>I think you'll find the cut-off point is 256MB. After that W9x can't use it.
>>>
>>>Any urls or references to support that?
>>
>>Ed Rauh? That's where I got it from.
>
>AFAIK, the limitation on Win9x addressing the data space is at least 512MB, the size of the 430BX chipset address space and Slot1 processor space, although the chipset may limit memory to less than that (430VX and TX maxed at 64MB, Celeron only goes to 384MB in some models, and I think the 440EX chipset limits to 256MB). It uses the same 4GB virtual address space for each VM that NT uses.
>
>You might try
www.tomshardware.comSorry, Ed, I was pretty sure I had gotten that from you. (Where *else* would I have gotten it? < g >) I'm pretty sure I saw it somewhere that W9x just ignored any memory above 256MB, or didn't make use of it anyways. Maybe it is just a H/W issue and not the OS at all!
