Mail Archives: cygwin/1996/11/27/13:28:38
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Heinz Hemken wrote:
> > Well, not everyone can afford NT. I still have more hard drive
> > activity than I like with 48 Mb, as opposed to 24 Mb with W95.
>
> I run NT 3.51 workstation on a Dell 486/66 machine with 16 Mb RAM & ~750
> Mb HD. I can run a couple of large apps at a time {PowerPoint | MSWord |
> Visual Cafe | Netscape Navigator/Mail | Supercede} with an open net
> connection without any major problems (though occasionally when I
> shutdown it gets lost). I don't have gcc on this machine, but I doubt
> I'd have major problems running it. Swapping CAN get heavy, though.
>
Well, you obviously have lower demands than I do. I ideally
want minimal or no swapping, that way the lifetime of the HD
ought to be extended a bit.
> NT as memory/disk hog is kind of an overhyped fact. Run W95 on 8 Mb RAM
> and see how far you can get.
I did that for half a year, in the end I got smart and used a faster disk
and permanent swapfile for swapping. When I shortly afterwards upgraded
to 16 Mb (without these optimizations) I didn't notice a big speed
difference (but yes a swapping difference).
NT 3.51 WS with 24 or 48 Mb of RAM should
> be even better, though I've heard people claim it runs poorly with > 16
> Mb (sounds crazy to me).
>
NT 4.0 with 24 Mb felt closer to W95 with 8 Mb than anything else. It
_could_ be that I (instinctively) used multitasking more carefully on
W95, so maybe this comparison is not quite accurate (but now I can
happily push it as far as I want :) ). Maybe I also got used to the
breeze of W95/24 Mb, and can't recall the 8 Mb days so well anymore.
BTW, I don't think this mailing list is intended for OS wars, which
this appears to develop into (isn't this effort all about bridging
such differences?).
cj
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".
- Raw text -