Thanks. I was afraid the hardware requirements were a little higher than the machines regularly available here; and it seems that this is, indeed, the case.

Any new machine has sufficient hardware, but old machines still abound.

>Hilmar,
>
>Couple of things:
>
>1) I'm fairly sure that the .NET framework cannot be installed on a Windows '95 machine. To the best of my awareness, everything frm Win '98 on is OK for the .NET framework, but not Win '95. Maybe someone else can confirm this.
>
>2) I tell people to get as much memory as they physically can. VS.NET is a tad sluggish even with 256 MB of memory, so in my opinion, 512 MB is much better for a developer. I used VS.NET for a while with 256 MB, and then went to 512, and noticed a BIG difference.
>
>For an end-user, the memory needed for decent performance is a little lower. I have a test machine where I run my compiled .NET apps. That machine has 192 MB of memory, and it runs decently. Not great, but decently. I've never tried 128, so my guess is that it will work, though a bit more sluggish. If any of my end users told me that all they had was 128MB of memory, I'd ask them if there were any way to bump that up.
>
>The nature of the app will factor into it (is it a rich UI or a simple one, are you frequently launching reports, are you dealing with sizeable datasets, etc.)
>
>Kevin