Re: Windows 2000/NT/98/95 performance on 701?

From: Aaron R. Teitlebaum (arteitle_at_engin.umich.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 22 2000 - 20:24:17 EST

• Next message: Dominique Pivard: "Re: Windows 2000/NT/98/95 performance on 701?"
• Previous message: Andreas Michaelides: "Cool Little Tool"
• In reply to: Tom Trottier: "Windows 2000/NT/98/95 performance on 701?"
• Next in thread: Dominique Pivard: "Re: Windows 2000/NT/98/95 performance on 701?"

Tom Trottier wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any experience with apparent speed of the various
> windoze on the 701? With how much memory?
>
> The M$ site says 486 works with w2000 & 32MB is the minimum:
> http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/beta/askdev/99june30.asp

This doesn't seem to be the case anymore.. Currently, Microsoft specifies a
Pentium 133 with 64 MB RAM as the minimum for Win2k Professional; Win2k
server requires even more RAM. I think that Win2k on a 701 would be
intolerably slow.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/upgrade/upgradereqs/default.asp

Aaron Teitlebaum
arteitle_at_engin.umich.edu

• Next message: Dominique Pivard: "Re: Windows 2000/NT/98/95 performance on 701?"
• Previous message: Andreas Michaelides: "Cool Little Tool"
• In reply to: Tom Trottier: "Windows 2000/NT/98/95 performance on 701?"
• Next in thread: Dominique Pivard: "Re: Windows 2000/NT/98/95 performance on 701?"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:48 EST