>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?

My LAN people completed and posted a study that addressed this a year or two back. There is no yes/no answer to your question.

The only question the study really answered was whether it was worth adding 64 RAM to any given machine. The answer to that was, basically, it depends. Older machines (less than about 300 MHz) did not utilize the extra RAM efficiently, and were not worth upgrading, even at the cheap memory cost.

Newer machines did utilize the extra 64 very well, under all of 95, 98, and NT, the study showed.