|
Look, this is just ludicrous. This discussion has been a nonsense avalanche. > Gotta love pc's, 128MB can't handle 2 measly tasks at the same time A junk PC here in the office that wasn't powerful enough to run Windows running OpenBSD handles mail, SSH, web, whatever. Never breaks a sweat. > :RAM. Go to 256 at least, 512 would be better. You've got > :plenty of horsepower, but it's wasting it's time paging RAM as > :it tries to multi-task. RAM's still pretty cheap. Another wonderful AS/400ism: if the box is slow, it's because you need <insert some completely ludicrous amount of RAM here> MB RAM. I'm writing this in Windows 2000 on a five-year-old P120 with 98MB RAM. 128MB is considered the minimum, and I'm always running Word, Outlook, and as many CA/400 or putty terminals as I can fit on the screen. This isn't an endorsement of Windows, I'm just pointing out what's possible. > :I have CA Express V4R5M0 installed on a new PC with 1.4GHZ and > :128MB RAM running W2K SP2. The only thing running on this PC > :is 2 display sessions and 1 printer session. Whenever someone > :prints something to > :the printer the PC just DIES!!!!!!! It takes 10-15 seconds after > :hitting a key to get a response, even just inputting data into > :a field. Any ideas??? I have an idea: IBM writes consistently shoddy software (at least for PCs) and releases it like a plague. If you want the software to work, prepare to spend lots of time navigating the mazelike infocenter looking for crazy service packs.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.