Warp wrote:
>>>   Actually Windows 3.1 could run in much less, and Win95 could run with
>>> 4 MB (I have direct experience of this).
> 
>> Right. So it's the AOL client that's requiring all this then? [I just 
>> remembered: IT'S AOL!!] Nothing new there then! ;-)
> 
>   Well, just launching IE and surfing the internet (even back then)
> probably required more than those 4 MB.

	Don't know if you were joking, but Win '95 + IE worked fine on 4MB RAM.

-- 
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message