At 01:23 PM 3/2/00 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I would check the slashdot archives.
>
>My concern as a company would be "what percentage
>of our PeeCees have the CPU/RAM/disk to even
>THINK about running W2K?"
>
>If y'all haven't done it yet, read the copy on the
>back of a W2K box at Fry's or CompUSA.
>
>Also, check the requirements:  32M RAM minimum.
>Heh.
>
actually ms says 64mb minimum for win2k and 256mb min for win2k server.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/upgrade/upgradereqs/default.asp

and mot is bringing in new machines, just trying to decide what os to put
on them. 

>D
>
>On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Rooster wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 13:04:07
>> From: Rooster <meinnetz@techmerc.dhs.org>
>> Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
>> To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
>> Subject: win2k 65k errors
>> 
>> does anyone still have the link to the article about the 65,000 errors with
>> winblows 2k? was discussing upgrade possibilities with someone at motorola
>> and would like to have that with me to prevent conversion to that system.
>> told them enough to make them nervous, but would like the print to fully
>> kill the idea.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Plug-discuss mailing list  -  Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
>> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>> 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plug-discuss mailing list  -  Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
>http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>