"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> Ian Burgmyer <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> : I don't know about WinXP, but it's looking pretty promising (minus the
> : backwards compatibility).
> And minus USB support? At least I have heard something that it will not
> support USB at all. So if you have any USB device, say bye bye to it.
What? That'd be totally stupid!
The source is probably wrong...Microsoft isn't so stupid that they'd cut out
support for some of their own products! (for instance, I have a USB
Microsoft mouse on my desk right now)
> : Get Win2K if at all possible...it'll save you a LOT of trouble!
> But it will certainly not save you memory and other resources.
> For some reason Microsoft thinks that "stability" implies taking
> of megabytes of memory.
> You can run a basic internet server with a 386 with 2 Megs of RAM if you
> use Linux. I suppose that Win2k would refuse to even install on it.
Windows 2000 runs with 128MB, which is almost like a standard. My friend
had it running nicely on 64MB. It's hard to find a system that comes with
less than 128MB, because applications need the space!
And I would _not_ trust a company server to a 386 with 2MB of RAM. Maybe a
Hint: Never install Windows 95 on less than a 486 DX2 66MHz, and never
install Windows 98 on less than a 486 DX4 100MHz...you'll never forgive
That's what's nice about Linux. I have a 486 SX 25 MHz system with 8MB of
RAM running downstairs with Red Hat Linux 6.0 (yes, I know it's outdated...)
and DOS 6.22 (with Windows 3.1) and it works great! I can't say the same
for Windows 95 (don't even try it!)
Post a reply to this message