Assuming the primary application of this computer is for home or general business use. Basically the main reason to get a Celeron would be cost. The Celeron is quite a bit less expensive than it's PII counterpart. If price is not an issue, by all means, go for the Pentuium II. However, from what I've heard, for the most part the Celeron performs nearly equivalently to a PII at the same clock speed but for less money. Be sure to get a Celeron 300A or above because the 266 and 300 did not have any cache. I have a Celeron 300A in my system and love the performance. With my TNT 2D/3D video card and 128MB RAM I can play all the latest games with full textures and good frame rates (hardly ever a glitch), and I have no issues in terms of performance with any other application either. The cache on the Celeron is 128K, while on the PII its 512K, however the cache on the Celeron is running twice as fast. From what I understand, based on information at www.tomshardware.com, the smaller but faster cache will actually benefit some applications while others will do better with the larger but slower variety. Bill Nussbaumer At 03:34 PM 1/15/99 -0500, you wrote: >Is there any reason I should not get a Celeron-based PC instead of a Pentium >II. What do I lose (I know the cache is smaller -- but what does that mean >practically speaking?) >Thank you. >Ira Wallin PCBUILD only works if you contribute. Send your messages to be posted to: [log in to unmask]