🚀 go-pugleaf

bobwill@teleport.com (Josh Williams) wrote:
>
> In article <40u9kl$qht@sundog.tiac.net>, chachi@heaven.tiac.net (Zoso) wrote:
> 
> > daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > >Both will converge over time.  But right now, 95 and NT serve
> > >different markets, as Microsoft intended.
> > Yup they are geared towards different markets.Win 95 will probably
> > require most of its users to upgrade memory and maybe some hardware. 
> > Gates says it will run smoothly on 8 megs but always double a
> > MicroSoft memory spec.
> 
> Yea and NT requires a minimunm of 12 meg just to install the thing.
> Josh


On the What's Cool page there is a Web Page called 
C/Net that tests the latest software, CD's ect.  There 
findings were that Windows '95 works with 8 mg, but 
there recommendation is that it works best with 16 mg.  
Simply stated, Windows '95 really needs 16 to work at 
its best.  Oh, if that isn't enough they also mention 
that if you are thinking of replacing your hard drive, 
a 1.2 GB hard drive would be nice.

Also, there is a blurb for the latest Norton software 
to add to your collection.  So your "cheap" upgrade to 
Windows '95 has now cost you a small fortune.

On a lighter note from a different resource
it is so simple to install that your "dog" could 
probably do it.  I wonder if my dog can help pay 
for it. 




is fairly simple.