From: "Robert Comer" 

Ellen, I agree with Rich (for once. ), a new install is the best
way to go over an upgrade.

64MB would run W2K as Rich says, but it would be pretty slow doing
development stuff.  I'd get an upgrade if you can. (you can never have
enough RAM is what I go by and it's the absolute first upgrade I think
about if there's a performance problem...)

- Bob Comer


"Rich"  wrote in message news:3ec2a71a{at}w3.nls.net...
   The system requirements for Windows 2000 Professional can be found at
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/sysreqs/. 
64MB is the low end.

   Again, if you do this I would recommend against an upgrade.  Do a clean
install and reformat the hard disk.

Rich

  "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:3ec2a370$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  > Would W2K even run on such a box?  (I bought in in early '98 I think.)

  Most likely, but there may be a driver problem if it's not standard stuff
  from that time.

  >So far
  > I can't find memory for it, only have 64MB.

  What is it?  (Make/model)  I'll see if I can find out more about it.

  > Also, with W2K wouldn't I want NTFS?   Right now it's FAT32.

  If all you're going to do is run one OS on it, yep, you'd want NTFS -- the
  W2K offers to upgrade your drive to NTFS, no problem. If you have other
  partitions, there's a convert program you run after you do the install.

  - Bob Comer




  "Ellen K"  wrote in message
  news:909377.ae7c35{at}harborwebs.com...
  > Would W2K even run on such a box?  (I bought in in early '98 I think.)
So
  far
  > I can't find memory for it, only have 64MB.
  >
  > Also, with W2K wouldn't I want NTFS?   Right now it's FAT32.
  >
  > > From: "Robert Comer" 
  > > Why not upgrade to W2KPro or WinXP -- it wouldn't be the speediest box
  in
  > > the world, but it'd be more stable and run more of today's programming
  > > stuff?
  > > - Bob Comer
  > > "Ellen K"  wrote in message
  > > news:509347.ac8012{at}harborwebs.com...
  > >> Urk.  If that's the case then the only thing I'd get with 98SE would
be
  > > the
  > >> ability to run newer versions of stuff that don't run on 95 any more
  (like
  > > the
  > >> Norton security stuff).
  > >>
  > >> Anything resembling power management is already disabled.
  > >>
  > >> How do you shut down to the "orange-on-black idiot
screen only"?
  > >>
  > >> What about Rnaapp?
  > >>
  > >> Maybe the original hard drive is starting to go bad... ?
  > >>
  > >> > From: "Frank Haber" 
  > >> > Why do you think 98SE will help your shutdown problem?
 Win 95 did
a
  > > pretty
  > >> > good job shutting down early APM systems.  98SE had notorious
  problems
  > > with
  > >> > that, got two partially successful patches for it, has had whole
  > > websites
  > >> > written about its power problems.  There are still a bunch of
  machines
  > > out
  > >> > there that won't shut down properly.
  > >> > Have you considered just disabling power management,
shutting down
to
  > > the
  > >> > orange-on-black idiot screen only, then leaning on the
power switch
  for
  > > five
  > >> > seconds?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4