From: "Robert Comer" 

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

256 for XP.

Extrapolating to Vista or the next after that?  Vista runs perfectly well
in 1G. 500-700M would be about like running XP in 256.

--
Bob Comer


"Geo"  wrote in message
news:45619181$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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