OK. Perhaps i misused a word. :-)
On the subject of System Resources, I think we pretty well thrashed it out
in a thread last August found at:
http://www.google.com/groups?safe=of...n&num=30&hl=en

Sorry, but Tinyurl does not seem to be working completely right now -- I
have no doubt that it will be soon though.

FACE

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 03:56:21 -0000, "SFB - KB3MM" in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

I think they are always dynamically allocated.

WIN9X systems only have a fixed size area 64 KB so the amout of RAM is
static.

There's no limit in the NT family.

"FACE" wrote in message
.. .
Just a note here.......

I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can
stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible.

The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources.

My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and
dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week
I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick
enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset.

Other than that, I have nothing at all against Win 98.

Consider this if the machines are going to be used for internet a lot.

FACE

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:06 -0400, 98 Guy in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to
850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw
(LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite),
Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very
fast, very quite machines.

They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost).
Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other
goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying
software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc).