SPONSORED LINKS
At 08:09 AM 3/19/97 HST, David Ross wrote: >> Has ANYONE actually tried a 32 meg chip in a 701? > >And is it a noticeable improvement over 16 megs? I thought that the >'sweet spot' for Windows 3.1 was around 12 megs (20 megs for Win95), >and anything extra only made a noticeable improvement on systems with >a big L2 cache. Its hard to say definitively, but I'd be willing to suggest that it does. I have a total of 24 MB in my 560, and I notice a significant difference when I have 3 or 4 programs going (Eudora, First Class, Netscape--all with an active dial-up connection) and try to load up another "biggie" (Word, Excel, Pagemaker, etc.) vs. If I load a biggie without anything else already loaded. I wish I had more memory--I believe it would make a significant difference. I posted sometime back that according to Norton Utilities, my base Win 95 setup (with the little extras loaded, like Norton Navigator utils) uses up something like 30 MB RAM just by booting up and sitting there without any additional software loaded. The Win 95 kernel alone (without *any* fancy stuff--i.e., networking capability) takes up 12 MB RAM. No question about it--lots of memory is useful. Under Win 3.1, I considered anything over 16 MB to be a waste for most people (unless you loaded huge Photoshop files or something) because it didn't handle the memory well anyway. But under Win 95--I wouldn't call any memory amount a "waste" until you got somewhere in the realm of over 48 MB. ------- Randy Whittle rwhittle@usa.net Marshall Graduate School of Business at USC http://www-scf.usc.edu/~whittle I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole. - Malcolm X