Once again, Wizard wrote: Sure, Bevis... Not the original design, the implimented design. Do pay attention: the PII was in most respects a reduced cost implimentation of the PPro with updated fab technology. Wrong...both of my PPro machines (Intel PR440 motherboards) use ECC EDO DIMMs. The IBM, Digital, HP and many other PPros used DIMMs as well. Also...once you understand computer architecture fundamentals a bit better, you'll figure out that modern processors are generally not tied to a particular memory subsytem. You can do all sorts of things to trade off between cost and speed. For example, my DEC Alpha PC64 uses 4 standard 72-pin ECC SIMMs for a 128-bit wide (+ECC) memory bus, which is in practice quite fast. And as far as capacity, 128MB 72-pin SIMMs are pretty common. Not bad capacity considering their obsolescence. You actually want to compare performance and density of memory technologies that are years appart. Clearly, the DC-3 was the crappiest airplane of all time, because the 767 is so much better. Ummm...random buzzword generator? Not even remotely intellegable. Or is it that you think it's remotely relevant to compare the PPro to chips which are 2 or 3 generations newer? D00d! The 386 b10wz compared to my P4. Duh. First...what's wrong with the 440FX? Or the 450GX? Or the 450KX? Or the 440LX (also, BTW, used for your vaunted PII)? Or the Micron, Via & SiS PPro chipsets for the PPro? And the last time I checked, most motherboards supported PII, PIII & Celeron. So what exactly is wrong with the BX, etc. that is specific to the Celeron such that it earns your "scorn" <snicker>? Details, that is...not nonsense like we've gotten till now. ObBigGiantClue: you can't ding a chipset for not supporting technology that didn't even exist when the chipset came out (like AGP or SDRAM). Second...make up your mind. Is it the processor you criticize (with no detail, of course, in all previous postings) or the chipset. You do realize they are different animals, right?