From: "John Beamish" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00C8_01C3236C.23A4F840
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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. =20

     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=3D11216104&m=3D0&cat=3D0&scat=3D0.
 = There is a Presario desktop at =
http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=3D11214707&m=3D488&cat=3D490&scat=3D4=
91 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 --=20
    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?
    > >
    > >
    >


------=_NextPart_000_00C8_01C3236C.23A4F840
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








I _almost_
agree with the Dell=20
recommendation.  Just remember that you will have to pay shipping
= charges=20
and at that price range they can represent a non-trivial portion of the = total=20
cost.
 
OTOH ... if
you value your time =
at $50/hr=20
the "cost" of driving over, picking up and bringing back the
machine can = easily=20
match the Dell shipping costs.

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3ed1b231$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     I
wouldn't recommend a =
best buy=20
  no-name box or the similar cheap ones at compusa either.  You can =
get an=20
  inexpensive Dell or HP box with Windows XP preloaded for less than =
$400. =20
  
   
     I
thought I saw one at =
compusa=20
  earlier today but can't find it on their web site.  Best Buy has =
a $499=20
  HP system with a $100 gift card at http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=3D11216104&m=3D0&cat=3D=
0&scat=3D0">http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=3D11216104&m=3D0&=
amp;cat=3D0&scat=3D0. =20
  There is a Presario desktop at http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=3D11214707&m=3D488&ca=
t=3D490&scat=3D491">http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=3D11214707&am=
p;m=3D488&cat=3D490&scat=3D491 which=20
  is also $499 and looks to have a $100 gift card and a $50 =
rebate.  The HP=20
  system looks nicer as one might expect for $50 more.
   
    
On its web site, =
Dell has a 2.2=20
  GHz, 256 MB RAM, 30 GB disk, CD-R/W system for $299.  There is no =
free=20
  shipping this week so unless you can convince them it may cost another =
$90 or=20
  so.
   
  Rich
   
  
    "Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote=20
    in message news:3ed19786{at}w3.nls.net...Ch=
eapie=20
    consumers machines can do that nicely, so it'd probably pay =
youtime-wise=20
    and frustration-wise to get an XPHome machine and be done with =
it.I saw=20
    one in the Best Buy paper for less than $400, gotta add a =
monitorthough.=20
    (or a Linux machine for even cheaper)- Bob =
Comer"Ellen=20
    K." <72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=">mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com">72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=
t;=20
    wrote in messagenews:u343dv4kkk4=
71lf1ls9r08qgb4tgji980b{at}4ax.com...>=20
    This isn't my development box, it's more like my email / internet =
/>=20
    cardfile box.>> On Wed, 14 May 2003
16:35:36 -0400, =
"Robert=20
    Comer"> <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote=20
    in message <3ec2a821{at}w3.nls.net>:><=">mailto:3ec2a821{at}w3.nls.net">3ec2a821{at}w3.nls.net>:><=
BR>>=20
    >Ellen, I agree with Rich (for once. <g>), a new
install is =
the=20
    best wayto> >go over an
upgrade.> >> =
>64MB=20
    would run W2K as Rich says, but it would be pretty slow =
doing>=20
    >development stuff.  I'd get an upgrade if you can. (you can =
never=20
    have> >enough RAM is what I go by and it's the absolute =
first=20
    upgrade I thinkabout> >if there's a
performance=20
    problem...)> >> >- Bob
Comer> =
>>=20
    >> >"Rich" <{at}>
wrote in message news:3ec2a71a{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
    >   The system requirements for Windows 2000 =
Professional can=20
    be found at>=20
    =
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/sysreqs/=
.64MB>=20
    >is the low end.> >>
>   Again, if =
you do=20
    this I would recommend against an upgrade.  Do =
aclean>=20
    >install and reformat the hard disk.>
>>=20
    >Rich> >>
>  "Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote=20
    in message>
>news:3ec2a370$1{at}w3.nls.net...> =
>  >=20
    Would W2K even run on such a box?  (I bought in in early '98=20
    Ithink.)> >>
>  Most likely, but there =
may be a=20
    driver problem if it's not standardstuff>
>  from =
that=20
    time.> >> > 
>So far> >  =
> I=20
    can't find memory for it, only have 64MB.>
>> =
> =20
    What is it?  (Make/model)  I'll see if I can find out more =
about=20
    it.> >> > 
> Also, with W2K wouldn't I =
want=20
    NTFS?   Right now it's FAT32.>
>> =
>  If=20
    all you're going to do is run one OS on it, yep, you'd want NTFS --=20
    the> >  W2K offers to
upgrade your drive to NTFS, =
no=20
    problem. If you have other> > 
partitions, there's a =
convert=20
    program you run after you do the install.>
>> =
>  -=20
    Bob Comer> >>
>> >> =
>>=20
    >  "Ellen K" <Ellen.K{at}harborwebs.com>">mailto:Ellen.K{at}harborwebs.com">Ellen.K{at}harborwebs.com>
= wrote in=20
    message> >  news:909377.ae7c35{at}harborwebs.=
com...>=20
    >  > Would W2K even run on such a box? 
(I bought in =
in=20
    early '98 Ithink.)>
>So> >  far> =

    >  > I can't find memory for it, only have
64MB.>=20
    >  >> > 
> Also, with W2K wouldn't I =
want=20
    NTFS?   Right now it's FAT32.>
>  =
>>=20
    >  > > From: "Robert Comer"
<bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
R>>=20
    >  > > Why not upgrade to W2KPro or WinXP -- it =
wouldn't be=20
    the speediestbox> > 
in> >  > =
> the=20
    world, but it'd be more stable and run more of=20
    today'sprogramming> > 
> > stuff?>=20
    >  > > - Bob Comer>
>  > > "Ellen =
K"=20
    <Ellen.K{at}harborwebs.com>=20">mailto:Ellen.K{at}harborwebs.com">Ellen.K{at}harborwebs.com>=20
    wrote in message> >  > > news:509347.ac8012{at}harborwebs.=
com...>=20
    >  > >> Urk.  If that's
the case then the only =
thing=20
    I'd get with 98SEwould>
>be> >  > =
>=20
    the> >  > >>
ability to run newer versions =
of stuff=20
    that don't run on 95 anymore>
>  (like> =
> =20
    > > the> >  >
>> Norton security=20
    stuff).> >  >
>>> >  > =
>>=20
    Anything resembling power management is already disabled.> =
> =20
    > >>> >  >
>> How do you shut down =
to the=20
    "orange-on-black idiot screen only"?>
>  >=20
    >>> >  >
>> What about Rnaapp?> =

    >  > >>>
>  > >> Maybe the =
original=20
    hard drive is starting to go bad... ?>
>  >=20
    >>> >  >
>> > From: "Frank Haber" =
<frhaber{at}N0SPMrcn.com>>=">mailto:frhaber{at}N0SPMrcn.com">frhaber{at}N0SPMrcn.com>>=
=20
    >  > >> > Why do you think
98SE will help your =
shutdown=20
    problem?  Win 95did>
>a> >  > =
>=20
    pretty> >  > >>
> good job shutting down =
early=20
    APM systems.  98SE had notorious> >  =
problems>=20
    >  > > with>
>  > >> > =
that, got=20
    two partially successful patches for it, has had whole> =
> =20
    > > websites> > 
> >> > written =
about its=20
    power problems.  There are still a bunch of>
> =20
    machines> >  > >
out> >  > =
>>=20
    > there that won't shut down properly.>
>  > =
>>=20
    > Have you considered just disabling power management,=20
    shuttingdown> >to>
>  > > =
the>=20
    >  > >> > orange-on-black
idiot screen only, =
then=20
    leaning on the powerswitch>
>  for> =
> =20
    > > five> >  >
>> > =
seconds?>=20
    >> =
>>

------=_NextPart_000_00C8_01C3236C.23A4F840--

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