Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: REH who wrote (9622)	11/14/1998 11:51:00 AM
From: wily	Respond to of 93625

>>While some early users of Windows NT 5.0 are seeking more memory, the same can't be said for the Windows 95/98 desktop segment. The basic memory configuration for standard desktops that cost $1,000 or more has been 64 Mbytes since the beginning of this year, and for the moment there's little incentive to go beyond that, according to Dataquest's Reynolds and PC product managers. The principal reason is that, while Windows NT 5.0 is scalable, Windows 95/98 is not. *OT* I've heard a lot of different answers to this question, and I thought I'd put it out here: The above quote seems to be saying that Windows 95/98 can't utilize more than a certain amount of RAM (64MB?, 128MB?). On the other hand, I've seen elsewhere that the limitation is a function of the mother board, specifically the type and size of level II cache. (And the evidence seems to support this, as there were early HX chipsets that supported 512MB and when PII's came out you started seeing machines with similar RAM size). I'm sure for some tech pros this is a rudimentary question--how about it? TIA wily