From: "Robert Comer" 

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