> On the other hand, if your chipset can't cache more than 64MB, going to > 80MB might actually make some things slower. I'm not sure if telling the > kernel "mem=64M" on an 80MB machine would be enough to fix that problem > or not.
Pasted below is an article from the ZDNet Web site about this. It seems to suggest that the L2 cache is somehow the limiting factor on RAM addressing capability (Is that right?). The HP800CT has a half meg of L2, which seems a reasonable amount. Plus HP itself actually produces a 64MB expansion chip for this model. So I'm guessing 64's the way to go. hk How much RAM is too much? I've read that 128 megs is too much, and that 256 is too much, and that anything above 64, Windows 95 will not recognize. Is that true, and how much RAM is the perfect amount? ANSWER: It depends on your system and what you're doing-- but 128 megs is almost always too much, and 256 is even more so. At some point, adding more RAM is a game of diminishing returns. You'll need to take into consideration the motherboard you have, since RAM is subject to the limitations of the motherboard. You also want to check your computer manual and see how much RAM your system supports. If you've got a Pentium system with a TX motherboard, anything more than 64MB is too much because the L2 cache on that motherboard only supports that much-- any more than that will actually slow your system down. At some point, adding more RAM is a game of diminishing returns. Running Windows 95, you'll see a substantial performance increase from 8MB to 16MB, a huge increase between 16MB and 32MB, a lesser increase from 32MB to 64MB, and little improvement from 64MB on up.
