The narrow linear bed does look best with just what you describe - different heights and textures, etc. For bones, you should be able to find many plants that will work in reasonably bright shade - various shapes of yew, plum yew, thuja, dwarf hemlock, and maybe small rhodos. The fastigiate forms and cultivars like Thuja DeGroot's spire might help if you want some height. One of my favourites that might qualify is Ilex crenata Mariesii, which has great form and foliage. I like to under/interplant with ferns, hostas, hellebores, and the like, but there are other options - maybe primulas? I don't know your zone of course. I just wouldn't do rows but rather groupings of plants with different forms that intersect and compliment each other. I've mentioned mostly evergreen stock and prefer that in such a setting because deciduous shrubbery will lean for the light, which will rob you of patio space. Even a vine will always be trying to grow out, though a trellis would anchor it a bit. KarinL

Hi...sorry I took so long to respond. :-) mes444...Not sure I want to be his 'sole' avenue for tech support. [g] Especially on a machine that I have no warranty on and then I have no where to go if he has a problem I am not able to troubleshoot. Maybe you are more computer confident than I am. Why would you say Apples are annoying and hv problems too? I had not heard that about them. mikie...yes, we had planned on upgrading out of the celeron processor, having heard in the past they were not so great. Why do you recommend a very large 2nd hard drive? The mini towers are desktops right? We are set on getting a notebook. So evidently on the list of things we plan on using the computer for, downloading DVDs would require more than the lower end computer offers then? Jane...Sounds like you bought a nice configuration on your machine. We would also go with the extended warranty and already deciding to stay away from Vista. We also don't need Office. We will take a closer look at the business machines. Thanks for that link poohbear...looks interesting. owbist...we live in the same house, so I guess we can go with the 'lo tech' way. lol Nice idea about the headphones though, I am going to look into that Skype. Yes, glad to have this forum to ask questions on. asolo...we do have an Apple store nearby and planning on looking into it. We looked at their website and they are offering $1,000. systems, which I didn't think they had any systems in that price range. Of course that is with one year warranty only. So I am sure it won't end up that price. They do offer tech support at the store too and classes, so we are going to check it out. I always have steered away from Apple, because people warned me about software compatibility problems..but I thought they had Apple versions of all the software? Plus, I am now on my 4th computer and I rarely add another piece of software once I get my computer, so everything that comes with the original machine should be compatible, right? So what is the drawbacks of going with Apple? The latest CReports shows the Apple to need more repairs then all other manufacturers, did you see that? I was surprised by that. But their tech support is supposed to be very good.

I can personally vouch that a Maytag A906 top load washer in the house I grew up in, made circa 1969, was still going strong when my folks moved out of their house five years ago. (for some reason I still have the owner's manual in my file cabinet which is why I know the model number). They built the same basic machine until roughly a decade ago, although their reputation took a deserved beating when they started buying out other companies and rebranding their appliances as Maytags. Then the company nearly failed and the remnants were bought out by Whirlpool and the old, unprofitable Maytag plant in Iowa was shut down. Modern "Maytag" appliances are mostly rebadged Whirlpools. Your old Kenmore was probably made by Whirlpool. Their basic top-loaders were reliable, but performance-wise were lacking IMO. The old ones (up to mid-'80s or thereabouts) were notoriously poor at extracting water in the spin cycle due to low speeds, thus requiring extra time and electricity to dry your clothes. Later models spun slightly faster, but trash your clothes because the agitator posts twists unusually fast in an attempt to make up for not being able to twist much to either side. I had one at my old apartment, and most of my clothes didn't survive being washed in my Whirlpool unscathed. It's especially bad if you have larger or bulkier items, which always got ripped to shreds by the fast-shaking agitator. Also, it doesn't spin when the water drains, so the gunk floating atop the water gets re-deposited on your clothes. Speed Queen made (and still makes) good, basic, reliable machines, which is why it's the most popular brand in laundromats. In stark contrast to Whirlpool's washers, they have a slow-moving agitator that still cleans well whilst being gentle on clothes because it can twist in a 210-degree arc. Many Speed Queens have durable stainless-steel tubs. Until the late '90s, Raytheon owned both Speed Queen and Amana, and the latter were nearly identical to the SQ. After then, Amana changed hands about four times and wound up being one of Whirlpool's low-budget brands. My xgf had a mid-1960s Frigidaire that was terrific, and is still working today. Any Frigidaires made when General Motors owned the company are first rate (that's true of all their appliances, not just washing machines). Unfortunately, they're getting hard to find, being pre-1980. But they're built like tanks, and they do a great job both cleaning and extracting water after it's done. These machines will have a reference to GM on the control panel and have porcelain tubs. Post-GM Frigidaire top-loaders, though, are awful, as are other brands that got bought out by the (no longer extant) White Consolidated Industries (White-Westinghouse, Kelvinator, and some machines made for other companies). These can be identified by white plastic tubs, which are usually scuffed by now. GE (and their low-end subsidiary Hotpoint) was fairly reliable through the mid-90s, though not everyone loves the filter you need to remove and replace each time you fill or unload the washer. That design is good if you have old or problematic plumbing though. In the mid-90s, they ditched the filter and went to larger plastic tubs (or stainless steel on the high-end models) instead of porcelain. These are less reliable than the older ones in my experience, but still reasonably good. The good news is that old top-load washers are all but given away on Craigslist every day. You may find a free one; they rarely go for more than $150 if they're more than 10 years old. Whirlpool and Whirlpool-manufactured Kenmores seem to be the most common, followed by Maytag and GE. Fisher & Paykel not common enough for me to have reliability info. Their machines wash well and have a high spin speed. So basically, old genuine Maytags and Speed Queens probably the best combination of common, cheap,and reliable. Really old Frigidaires are best if you can find one. Whirlpool/Kenmore are reliable but mediocre performers (avoid the newer "Calypso" models that don't have agitator posts - they're lemons). Avoid post-GM Frigidaires (with plastic tubs) or White-Westinghouse. Newer high-efficiency top-loaders without agitator posts made by LG, Samsung, or Whirlpool/Maytag probably still too expensive used, and long-term reliability as yet undetermined, but I'd strongly consider one if I found one for a good price. They have huge capacity and some of them can heat their own water, and they usually have high spin speeds for faster drying. I'm probably forgetting some brands - i'm sure someone will chime in here; there are some seriously knowledgeable old-appliance experts here, and I don't count myself amongst them.

dbarron, I like the idea of checking with the Missouri Wildflowers department. They have a lot of good resources, as does the Missouri Botanical Gardens. Thanks for the suggestion! Vaporvac, spirea! Yes! Thank you! Not sure why I didn't think of it before. I just needed y'all to get my brain juices flowing. :) Spirea is practically indestructible here, and can add that nice chartreuse pop if I use the right variety. Susan, 'Caramel' heuchera is one of the only ones I've found in my area to tolerate more sun and dryness than the others. Great suggestion! I'll definitely be using that. There are also a few gold hostas I have that may work. We'll see. They might still burn, but if I c an shade them a bit with shrubs they may work beautifully. jacqueline, I've had good success with irises in partial shade, and I know they wouldn't mind the sun and dryness. Thank you! stephanie, nandina is an excellent suggestion! and it may provide the evergreen I was needing. I also like the idea of a redbud or similar tree/shrub. rosylady, I have both 'Lady in Red' and 'Bloomstruck' which have a different, more leathery leaf than the normal mophead and hold up so much better to drought and heat! I'll definitely give them a chance there, with supplemental water. Glad to hear yours have thrived in a similar situation! oursteelers, I think I shall give one or both of those roses a try there I have about 15 balllerinas, so nothing to lose there. lol. mustbnuts, natives tend to work so well in those tough areas! I'm definitely going to try solomon's seal and oakleaf hydrangea. Amanda, we have native roses growing in the shade, as well! I'l definitely give it a try. Thanks for sharing your experiences! NHbabs, I'm sure things would hold up better if it were consistently moist. I can't provide that for them, though, so I'm trying to just deal with it. :) Definitely large enough to accommodate shrubs. I'll be trying oakleaf hydrangea, and clematis too! I have a really nice striped sedge that holds up well in sun or shade, moist or dry. Thanks for the suggestions! noseometer, that sounds awful! At least I don't have the same altitude to deal with. I do agree though that it is the sudden sun at the hottest part of the day that is so harsh. Glad someone else feels the pain. :) I was beginning to think I was somehow mistaken! faith and rifis, thank you for the suggestions! I've gotten so many good ones! cyndita, uh-oh. Just as I was getting encouraged about roses! I'll still give them a try. We'll see. I'll let you all know the results, if there are any good ones. :) lol. I'definitely be trying boxwoods, as they are solid performers here in almost any condition. violetsnapdragon, yes! Sometimes a plant that would overwhelm in ideal conditions struggles along at just the right pace in a tough spot. Thanks for the reminder! Whew! thanks to all of you wonderfully helpful folks! I have lots to think on now... Thank you again! I'll report back with what does/doesn't work in a year or so.