From: Paul Khoury (pkhoury_at_loop.com)
Date: Sat Apr 04 1998 - 20:38:46 EST
On Sat, 04 Apr 98 10:11:32 -0500, letoured_at_sover.net wrote:
>I think the cost of Warp Connect vs. Warp 4, would make it more logical to
>go with Warp 4. --I've never run Warp Connect, but I've run Warp 3 and
>Warp 4 on a DX50 with 16mb. Whether they are tolerable or not depends upon
>you've seen either on a faster machine.
>
>Personally, I would go with Warp 4 and only install the network features
>that you really have to have, and look for more memory too.
>
>FWIW, the minimun ram unsed for networking under Warp 4 are:
>
>The remote access client, 6mb of ram
>File & Print Client, 4 mb
>TCP/IP Service, 4mb
>Netware Client, 2mb
>Newwork & Protocol Services, 2mb
>System Management client, 1mb
>
Plus at least 100MB of HD space for the base OS, and 12MB RAM.
I ran for a while on 12MB RAM, but I now have 24, and performance is much better
with the extra 16 MB.
-- Paul Khoury <pkhoury_at_loop.com> http://pkhoury.dyn.ml.org Sent from my ThinkPad 701CS running OS/2 Warp 4.0, Fixpack 5 There are 20 Processes with 78 Threads. This machine's uptime is 0d 0h 31m 27s 62ms.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:53:59 EST