classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu Subj: Re: Development, round II Ward Donald Griffiths III wrote: OK - I stand corrected. BTW Fry's in the SF bay area has been selling OS/2 4.0 for quite a while. That too is what I thought (I don't follow Trek things at all). !> *for the curious: system requirements on the box for Warp 3.0 were listed as !> "Intel 386 SX-compatible of higher; 4 MB minimum of RAM" (<- widely regarded !> as a joke among OS/2 users who knew that 8 MB RAM was a minimally configured !> system). ! !Runs better than Windows 3.1 on a 386/25 with 4 Meg RAM. I assume !the above quote was pasted from from somewhere, because you've never !used it (OS/2) yourself. Remember, Windows 95 supposedly can run on a !4MB system, says my package. I ran OS/2 v. 2 on a friends system (and helped him with the memory upgrade on a system with 16 Megs of RAM. I never ran Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 on either machine so I cannot make a direct comparison (Win NT 3.51 was running on the latter machine long enough to allow setting up the OS/2 installation). We also played around with the Voice control on a beta release of Merlin (thanks for reminding me of the code name) but that machine was eventually pressed into service running NT (I never saw it after that). The advice of "you should have more than 4 MB RAM" was taken from my friend (who is still quite the OS/2 zealot) and I thought that I had read it in the paperback version of the OS/2 FAQ as well - but I could easily be mistaken about that latter source. I am quite glad to hear that your performance was so good with only 4 MB - great OS isn't it? Peter Prymmer