[H-GEN] Tag RAM and lots of memory

[Frank Brand]

David Jericho wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Matthew Tippett beat me to the punch and wrote:
> 
> > Martin Pool wrote:
> > >
> > > I read something a while ago which more or less said:
> > >
> > >    If you put more than 64MB in a PC, you have to buy more tag
> > >    RAM/cache/something else or it will slow right down.  PCs
> > >    can't normally cache the memory above 64MB.



> It turns out that the motherboard could only cache 64MB (IIRC, TX chipsets
> can't cache more) and low and behold, they had 128MB. AFAIK, Windows 95
> fills top down, so guess which lot of RAM wasn't being cached. It was
> painfully slow when doing things like loading word.
> 
> Problem was fixed by convincing them they needed a higher quality
> motherboard. I did my Micronics plug :)



Actually a "lower" quality motherboard ie. one with the 2-year-old HX
chipset would have done the job. So long as they were not using SDRAM of
coause - then they would have needed to go back to EDO as the HX chipset
only supports EDO not SDRAM.
-- 
Frank Brand
E-mail: fbrand at mailbox.uq.edu.au
Homepage: http://www.uq.edu.au/~zzfbrand
----------------------- HUMBUG General List --------------------------------
echo "unsubscribe general" | mail majordomo at humbug.org.au # To Unsubscribe