I read somewhere that for 'optimum performance' 128M is recommended John |-----Original Message----- |From: D. Taylor [mailto:dtaylor@www.dssolutions.com] |Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 1:24 PM |To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us |Subject: Re: win2k 65k errors | | | |I would check the slashdot archives. | |My concern as a company would be "what percentage |of our PeeCees have the CPU/RAM/disk to even |THINK about running W2K?" | |If y'all haven't done it yet, read the copy on the |back of a W2K box at Fry's or CompUSA. | |Also, check the requirements: 32M RAM minimum. |Heh. | |D | |On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Rooster wrote: | |> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 13:04:07 |> From: Rooster |> Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us |> To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us |> Subject: win2k 65k errors |> |> does anyone still have the link to the article about the |65,000 errors with |> winblows 2k? was discussing upgrade possibilities with |someone at motorola |> and would like to have that with me to prevent conversion to |that system. |> told them enough to make them nervous, but would like the |print to fully |> kill the idea. |> |> |> _______________________________________________ |> Plug-discuss mailing list - Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us |> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss |> | | |_______________________________________________ |Plug-discuss mailing list - Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us |http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss |