From: "Geo" 

Just because I ran NT 3.1 on a 12 mb 386  doesn't mean it ran exceptably on
that platform.

But ok fine, so what was the min for XP in your experience? Now extrapolate
what the next version is going to require.. 

Geo.

"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:45606490$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Vista runs just fine in less than 1G...
>
> It's true it takes more machine than XP did, but XP takes more machine
than
> W2K does, as W2K takes machine than NT4 ...
>
> --
> Bob Comer
>
>
> "Geo"  wrote in message
news:455ff848{at}w3.nls.net...
> > "Adam"
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote
> > in
> > message news:455dc888{at}w3.nls.net...
> >
> >> There's bugger all diff till you get to large memory requirements.
> >>
> >> Do you have a large (many GB) database you want to operate on in RAM?
> >> Are you doing nuclear simulation or rendering massive graphics files?
> >
> > Well vista want's 2 gig just to run acceptably, if you run the beta of
the
> > next version of windows you probably need 64 bit just to load the damn
> > graphics driver..
> >
> > Geo.
> >
> >
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5