I object to your use of the word "recent" in the paragraph below. :-) I have a FIC PA-2007 (which is no longer made) that I purchased in October of 1997. It cached greater than 64 MB without a problem! It depends on the chipset and cache size (the PA 2007 had 1 MB cache and used a VIA chipset). The old TX chipset did have this limitation. I have not yet entered the realm of Pentium II and III computers/MBs, but I am fairly sure they are NOT limited to caching 64 MB of RAM. Just my 2 cents on a topic which has come up before. Jim > Just a side note. Not familiar with you particular mobo but I suspect, since > only a few most recent mobos do, that your mobo will only cache up to 64 Mb. > So actually adding more memory will cause you to take a 10 ~ 15% performance > it. The reason for this is that Win9x loads its system from top down and > therefor will be located in the uncached area of RAM. Since this is the most > used "software", it will actually slow the performance down. The only reason > I would think one would want more than 64 MB on a mobo that does not cache > above that is if you are loading veerrrry large files, e.g. 80Mb graphics > file, which would then be able to load into RAM and not have to access the > hard drive constantly while working on it. > > How do you now if it caches more than 64 or what ever. Ask the mobo > manufacturer. > > Daniel Wysocki > Twin*.*Star Computers > 770-498-2582 /800-816-0663 > [log in to unmask] > Fast - Reliable - Wallet Friendly > -----Original Message----- > From: bdecker <[log in to unmask]> > > > >Could anyone point me in the right direction for information on getting > full > >128 MB memory usage in my system? Mbrd is an Intel 440FX, Pentium Pro > 200., > >specs says it supports up to 250 MB DRAM using stndrd 72 pin SIMMS > > PCBUILD's List Owner's: > Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]> > Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]> Jim Maki [log in to unmask] PCBUILD's List Owner's: Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]> Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]>