"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message
> Hay! - we should change the subject as there is at least 3 of us - our own
> private group perhaps?
> > Windows 2000 runs with 128MB, which is almost like a standard. My
> > had it running nicely on 64MB. It's hard to find a system that comes
> > less than 128MB, because applications need the space!
> I have it running with 256 here, it really makes a big difference and i
> would not concider using less.
Yeah, I have 256MB now, too. I'm just saying that it runs real nice with
> > And I would _not_ trust a company server to a 386 with 2MB of RAM.
> > 486 ;-)
> I would - those old 386 boxes will plug along (slowly) for years - and
> make great linux firewalls
Slowly is right :-)
Post a reply to this message