Can PII 233 fully used 224 meg of ram?

I'm planing adding 128 ram for my PII 233 comp with 20 GB hard disk, Asus tnt2 m64 32 ram video card and running win2k and win98. I usually play diablo II and FPS game. Is there any increasment in performance? Thank you.

RAM will always increase performance, until you hit the 512MB limit of the operating system.
Hopefully that will all change in the future.

....why does EVERYONE think 9x has a ram limit...it has NO RAM LIMIT WHAT SO EVER. period.

anyway, back to the question...
Full usage of the ram really is limited to what you do with it. If you only use outlook and play around on the internet, then no, you're not going to use that amount of ram. If you play games, then yes, it'll help.

and just to further my claim...read <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q181/8/62.ASP" target="_blank">this</a> from microsoft's web page.

and that page doesn't even imply it does have a limit after 1gig

I agree wholeheartedly with Fubarian. Although it MAY be a limitation of the Motherboard.

Well ok Fubarian if you want to play the " Read the MS article game" perhaps you should read this one <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q253/9/12.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0&qry=RAM&rnk=13&src=DHCS_MSPSS_gn_SRC H&SPR=W98SE" target="_blank">MS Knowledge board</a>

[quote]Originally posted by Eagle PC Diagnostech:
<strong>RAM will always increase performance, until you hit the 512MB limit of the operating system.
Hopefully that will all change in the future.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think that Someone will reach the memory limit of Win2k...

[quote]Originally posted by Gabriel:
<strong>

I don't think that Someone will reach the memory limit of Win2k...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree

Thanx guys! BTW, i've brought 128 sdram with cas latency 2 and pc133. It doesn't work right at first with my mother board but after swaping the ram between the slot, it works smooth until now.

[quote]Originally posted by Budster64:
<strong>Well ok Fubarian if you want to play the " Read the MS article game" perhaps you should read this one <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q253/9/12.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0&qry=RAM&rnk=13&src=DHCS_MSPSS_gn_SRC H&SPR=W98SE" target="_blank">MS Knowledge board</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

uh ok....where does it say the OS can only use 512megs of ram?! This article talks about the virtual mem....and limiting the usages of ram using maxfilecahce...and also says to, again, LIMIT the amount of mem to less than 512meg

this is telling you if yer having this problem with boatloads of ram - cut down the Vcahce file.

STILL nothing to do with a "limit" that windows can use....its saying - if you have 768 or 512 and having these errors, try this

Duh

My point is that your article never mentions an upper limit, it also never says that the OS will work as well with large amounts of RAM either.
Experience will show that Win9X does not have great memory management, or have you never heard the term BSOD? if it did why must we reboot after a failed program crashes your comp? that's because Win9X does not run programs in a seperate memory space like NT4/5 do. And consequentially you won't see any significant performance enhancements to running more than 512MGb of RAM in W9X, probably the contrary and that error you pointed out about the VCache it must happen frequently don't you think, for MS to make a knowledge base article about it? Also their solution is to limit the RAM not the VCACHE to under 512MGBs...why would they mention the amount of RAM if that was not the cause of the problem? Win2K on the other hand thrives on large amounts of memory and can use it properly.

The best way to end a flaming war is to take it into PM's or do not respond to the initial attack.

Good points on both sides BUT "Buster64" Wins Hands Down.
Sorry.
The flame is flickering.

DANIMAl you are quite right...my apologies.

[quote]Originally posted by Sun Zi:
<strong>I'm planing adding 128 ram for my PII 233 comp with 20 GB hard disk, Asus tnt2 m64 32 ram video card and running win2k and win98. I usually play diablo II and FPS game. Is there any increasment in performance? Thank you.</strong><hr></blockquote>You'll be at 256MB of ram? That will do fine. I don't think 98 is a great idea for running games since it tends to lock up a lot. Also, a utility that allowed the ramdisk settings for windows to be extended would help a good deal.

[quote]Originally posted by DANIMAL:
<strong>The best way to end a flaming war is to take it into PM's or do not respond to the initial attack.

Good points on both sides BUT "Buster64" Wins Hands Down.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

make a good statement, then say someone wins

not very smart move.

Mmmmm..... TECHNICALLY, ( :D ) the answer to the question is Yes, as a Pentium can address 4Gb of memory, the limit of the 32 bit address bus. And as far as Win9x goes, the OS is already addressing virtual memory in the 3-4 Gb block, so it doesn't have a limit at 512M, but neither does it have NO limit. Theoretically, the 3Gb below virtual memory could be filled with physical memory. The problem is that Vcache runs out of available addresses when the memory size goes over 512M, so the cache size or the memory size have to be restricted. It is quite true to say Win9x/ME has memory handling limitations.

Sun Zi, you shouldn't have a problem unless the Support Chipset used on your motherboard has a limit to how much memory it can cache. If it does, you will find some slowing of performance at times as uncached memory is accessed.

excellent explanation Playtpus. :)

Fubarian I must apologize to you for being confrontational. I was actually trying to make a point that the MS Knowledge base can sometimes be like the bible, you can sometimes find contradictory evidence if you look hard enough. But it came out as a flame and for that I apologize. Sorry dude.

....I'd like to see win9x have a page file 4gb in pio mode....that'd be fun to watch :D

Yes - win9x mem management SUCKS hard...but my only point was this -= I've heard probably ....20 people say 9x doesn't understand over this, or it can't use anything over that =- ...well, ok, I'd give ya that win9x doesn't NEED anything over...256? 128 it runs fine. You could put god knows how much on a 9x machine, now will it use it AS well?? no, but it can address over a gig. Now why in the #@$% would you use a gig on 9x is beyond me, but hey, whatever floats yer boat.

(i loaded up 640 megs of ram under 9x and it took over 20 seconds to clear it out :D )

Anyway, my only arguement is that 9x can "understand" over 512 or 768. Now is it as useful as it is on 2k? no. Not in the least bit...but again, if you want to....