Re: part rant (implied) part request for help - Win95 to Win98 upgrades

  • From: Steve Baker <ice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: technocracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:36:29 -0500

"Jerry Hargis" <CCHARGIS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I need practical advice on what to
> consider as a realistic limit on the configuration and hardware of
> computers that will be upgraded from Windows95 to Windows98. Ignoring
> Microsoft's lower limit of a 486/66 with 24 MB of RAM, what do any of
> you think I should set as a lower limit for hardware?

  The absolute minimum required to make Windows run smoothly?  I think at
the very least a IBM S/390 would be needed.  I don't think they've invented
cheap PC hardware that can run Windows smoothly.

> If you have files that are too large to fit on floppy
> disks, you can send those files to a friend or colleague via e-mail for
> safekeeping during the upgrade. "

  Hmm, that might explain some of the mailhogs on mama:

           20951   zumas
           13695   sdjessie
           12606   bhua
           11976   beatle

  Of course the whole backing up files through e-mail reminds me of one of
my pet peeves.  Why don't we have 100MB floppies that cost $.30 each yet?
We have 720MB CD-R's that cost < $.50 each, and CD-RW's don't cost much more.
1.44MB floppies were first made over 10 years ago, while 386's became
common, if moores law applied to floppies the same way that it applies to
hard drives, our floppies should hold 1.44 _GB_ and cost $8 in packs of 25.

                                                                - Steve

Other related posts: