From: "Randy H" 

The largest I've seen in the retail channel is 250 GB.

"Geo."  wrote in message news:3ed269e8{at}w3.nls.net...
> where are the 300+ gig drives?
>
> Geo.
>
> "Randy H"  wrote in message
> news:3ed2587b{at}w3.nls.net...
> > Sam's Club is selling those 160 GB drives for $150/ea. And I heard that
> > CompUSA is flogging the same drive after rebates for ~$100.
> >
> > I'm living dangerously right now-I broke my IBM 60 GB mirror into a
> striped
> > 120 GB set to house my media.
> >
> > "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
> > news:0bf4dvkgl7nmhjsqlhl15oim40g0coamgt{at}4ax.com...
> > >
> > > If you check www.dell.com.nytimesoffer once or twice a week, you'll
> often
> > > see a "free shipping" promotion.   Now, if I could
only get rid of
that
> > > forced Windows XP purchase on the Dell desktop, I might even be
tempted.
> > >
> > > I picked up a nice media server from that page.  600SC box, Pentium 4
> > > 2.4GHz, 128MB memory, lots of drive bays, 40GB 7200GB drive, Intel
> gigabit
> > > NIC.  $312 including tax, no shipping charges.
> > >
> > > The box was OS-free.  It is now running RH Linux 8.0 with a 3Ware IDE
> RAID
> > > controller; and 3 Maxtor 160GB 8MB cache 7200 rpm IDE drives, plus a
> 40GB
> > > boot drive. It's also running Samba for Windows networking.  :-)
> > >
> > >  /m
> > >
> > > On Mon, 26 May 2003 09:49:45 -0400, "John Beamish"
> 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I _almost_ agree with the Dell recommendation.  Just remember that
you
> > will have to pay shipping charges and at that price range they can
> represent
> > a non-trivial portion of the total cost.
> > > >
> > > >OTOH ... if you value your time at $50/hr the
"cost" of driving over,
> > picking up and bringing back the machine can easily match the Dell
> shipping
> > costs.
> > > >  "Rich"  wrote in message
news:3ed1b231$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > >     I wouldn't recommend a best buy no-name box or the
similar cheap
> > ones at compusa either.  You can get an inexpensive Dell or HP box with
> > Windows XP preloaded for less than $400.
> > > >
> > > >     I thought I saw one at compusa earlier today but
can't find it
on
> > their web site.  Best Buy has a $499 HP system with a $100 gift card at
> >
http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=11216104&m=0&cat=0&scat=0. 
There is
a
> > Presario desktop at
> >
http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=11214707&m=488&cat=490&scat=491
which
> is
> >  also $499 and looks to have a $100 gift card and a $50 rebate.  The HP
> > system looks nicer as one might expect for $50 more.
> > > >
> > > >     On its web site, Dell has a 2.2 GHz, 256 MB RAM, 30 GB disk,
> CD-R/W
> > system for $299.  There is no free shipping this week so unless you can
> > convince them it may cost another $90 or so.
> > > >
> > > >  Rich
> > > >
> > > >    "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
> > news:3ed19786{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > >    Cheapie consumers machines can do that nicely, so
it'd probably
pay
> > you
> > > >    time-wise and frustration-wise to get an XPHome machine and be
done
> > with it.
> > > >    I saw one in the Best Buy paper for less than $400,
gotta add a
> > monitor
> > > >    though. (or a Linux machine for even cheaper)
> > > >
> > > >    - Bob Comer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    "Ellen K."
 wrote in message
> > > >    news:u343dv4kkk471lf1ls9r08qgb4tgji980b{at}4ax.com...
> > > >    > This isn't my development box, it's more like my email /
internet
> /
> > > >    > cardfile box.
> > > >    >
> > > >    > On Wed, 14 May 2003 16:35:36 -0400,
"Robert Comer"
> > > >    >  wrote in message
:
> > > >    >
> > > >    > >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