Actually, if scans are large, using 256 meg might be preferable.
Besides, at $100 or less for each 128 meg, it's not a really
big expense.
Also, NT/2000 handle memory better than 95/98/ME. They might be
better OS choices as memory thrashing would be eliminated or more
greatly reduced. They're built for larger applications.
Collin
At 10:04 PM 2/4/01 -0600, Todd wrote:
>You don't need a high end machine to do what you are doing. 933Mhz will be
>way more than enough. You'd probably be happy with a 200Mhz machine. The
>ram is more important, get 128MB atleast if you are using Win 95, more if
>you are using the latest bloatware (Windows ME or 2000). Also, spend your
>money on a good, quality, but not as fast computer than some no-namer that
>is faster, but the hardware is crap and will give you nothing but problems.
> As for the monitor, get a really good one. A good monitor could last you
>10 years or more, while the computer will probably not hang around nearly
>that long.
>
>Todd
***************
"The accumulation of all powers legislative,
executive and judiciary in the same hands . . .
may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 47
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
