>>I know that and I agree. I mentioned it to show that a not so old system, which I suspect is equal or better than many out there right now (it runs XP just fine) is not fit to run VS.Net and I suppose a decent .Net app., so it supports my point elsewhere that .Net also requires an investment in hardware.
>
>This means that, especially for developing countries, switching to .NET might be premature.
>
>Of course, top managers in relevant companies might still get convinced to switch to .NET, so I was thinking to start learning .NET anyway (and in 2-3 years, while I go ahead learning, most computers will have appropriate hardware anyway). But learning is means that I have to do a major hardware upgrade myself, first, or borrow the machines at work (spending some extra time there). (Sigh)

Sounds feasible. Yes, you would have to upgrade, but then, as a developer you should have enough hardware to run and test what you plan to develop, and be able to play with newer technologies (I know it is not always easy to budget for new hardware and harder yet, to justify it to your wife {bg}).