From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Richard Elberger" <richelbe@richelberger.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [9fans] mk
Message-ID: <JNENKONOPMBLIHLMIJEDKEFPCAAA.richelbe@richelberger.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <20010424223730.B8344@honk.eecs.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:25:43 +1200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8ea43dc2-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Without being detail, you can get by with a base installation of pro w/
64mb.  Although tough, I have run (client) test machines with 32mb (don't
try it with 24, you will die).  Depends on the services you are running.  If
you decide to run IIS, then forget it, in my experience you will be dead in
the water with 64mb.  The disk will be begging for mercy.

So after someone gets inspired (enough) to run pview and disk perfmon stats
(sure, even puttin the swapfile on separate disk would change things quite a
bit), I think this discussion becomes very subjective fast.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu [mailto:9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu]On Behalf
Of William Josephson
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:38 PM
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [9fans] mk


On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:52:40AM +0200, Boyd Roberts wrote:

>     700 Mhz Pentium III
>     64 Mb ram
>     15 Gb disk
>
> unless i was hallucinating i've done a bit of work with
> virtual address space / memory management.  'course i
> could just be making this up.

I haven't run Windows in a coon's age, but those who insist on running
W2K have told me that even with 128MB core it is somewhat sluggish.  I
imagine it is painful with less.

 -WJ