>>>And the 64MB minimum is coming from the same people who told you that Win95 would run on a 386SX with 4MB of RAM...
>>
>>I tried that. It ran. No. It crawled.
>>
>>When I won a game of Solitaire, the cars bounced long enough to allow me a break, so I could go to a toilet, get back, go to kitchen, take something from the fridge, and when I got back it was just about ready to drop the aces.
>
>I remember. And having tried a few other 'minimum' system configurations in the past (like trying to run NT on a machine with 12MB of RAM), I'm guessing that 128MB will be needed in the not too distant future...

I found this comparison interesting: when Win95 came out (and for a while afterwards) my home computer was still a 386DX-40 (AMD) with 8Mb RAM. Now, everyone said at the time that Win 95 ran ridiculously slow on a 386 compared to running on a 486, Pentium, etc. What they didn't say, was that Win 95 ran faster on my 386 than Win 3.1 ran on my 386! It did!

>This is scary; I remember thinking that a PDP 8e with 16K of 12-bit core and a TU-8 tape drive was 'big iron'!

It was! The iron has gotten smaller (physically), but it's capacity has grown. Wait a minute, doesn't that violate a law of physics? (I know, you never studied law ... ;)

Cheers,