From: William Armstrong (warmstrong_at_waldinc.com)
Date: Tue Dec 01 1998 - 21:46:17 EST
You are probably right about the 64mb max. I recall a lengthy exchange here
to that effect some time ago. I wouldn't know if the additional 32mb makes
a difference, as I have not used this laptop with anything other than 96mb.
I have flirted with NT, but currently use '98. I think that I read that
with NT there is no performance loss, only with 95/98.
WA
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Fink [mailto:rfink_at_leland.Stanford.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 5:29 PM
To: William Armstrong
Subject: Re: i720 for my wife, or not?
At 01:34 PM 12/1/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Here are my options:
>
>I own a 770 (the original one: 9549-1AU) with 96mb. of RAM and a DVD drive.
>My original idea was to give this laptop to my wife and replace it with a
>770X for myself. I do a lot of CAD and graphics and the better screen and
>video are most desirable. I also believe that the 770X will be ideal for
>Windows 2000, if and when it becomes available (early next year?).
>
Sorry not to answer your question, but I have one for you. I have the
exact same machine (no $$ for a 770X, more's the pity), but I thought that
putting more than 64mb of ram in would actually slow the machine down (P233
MMX processor uses a chip set that can only cache 64mb of ram). Did you
consider this? Is the performance better or worse with 96mb than with >=
64?
rwf
_____________________________________________
Robert Fink
UCLA; Stanford Humanities Center 98-99
NEW: rfink_at_leland.stanford.edu
bfink_at_ix.netcom.com
"The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the
Ninth is one of the most horrifying moments in music,
as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming
up energy which finally explodes in the throttling, murderous
rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release." (McClary 1987)
______________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:54:33 EST