Follow-up questions for MS on RAM and Win98.

Thanks for the info, MS. As always, you are a fountain of knowledge. 8O)

Seems my system was already set to the "Network Server" option, so I didn't have to
change anything. I note with interest that the "Network Server" setting seems to
affect how the hard drives are handled (it's located under the "hard disk" tab) and not
relate directly to how how Win98 handles memory, per se. Is that because this "memory"
problem of going over 512 meg is really a problem of how the hard drives are handled
in that situation and not so much with the memory itself?

Also, at one point in the article (by the way, great article with lots of good info. )
you say...

"Windows 95/98 as well as the older 3.xx versions use the RAM the other way around.
That is, they start at the highest memory addresses and therefore, if those are beyond
the cacheable limit, the system will suffer a noticeable performance hit. The reason is
that, no matter, how much memory is occupied, a portion will always be in the
uncached area and result in slower memory access of the system also commonly
called "performance hit"."


Does this mean that while setting Win98 to the "Network Server" option may get rid of
stability problems with using over 512 meg in Win98, one will still suffer some sort
of "performance hit" to the memory functioning itself? Or is the cacheable limit on
the DDR boards so high that one would never encounter any performance hit (at least
up to 768 meg RAM on the MB)?

Thanks for any info. you can provide.