From: "Chris Jones" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Win 2000 & Djgpp Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:21:59 -0000 Organization: University of Kent at Canterbury Lines: 68 Message-ID: <88k9kj$4s2$1@spruce.ukc.ac.uk> References: <88h09d$9of$1 AT spruce DOT ukc DOT ac DOT uk> <38AC4F1B DOT 3A1D2870 AT bigfoot DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: stue20c.ukc.ac.uk X-Trace: spruce.ukc.ac.uk 950905299 4994 129.12.226.12 (18 Feb 2000 20:21:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news AT ukc DOT ac DOT uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Feb 2000 20:21:39 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com > Well, I think I am in a position to post a comparison, having used Windows > '95, Windows NT and Linux on the same Pentium 133: > > Win95 + Winamp - 20% processor usage, jumps/pauses now and then > WinNT4 + Winamp - 10% processor usage, smooth whatever Thankyou - someone else with a not-top-of-the-range computer who understands what I'm talking about. > Now, when it comes to memory, NT uses more, but give it 48MB and it's > a happy bunny. Windows 2000 needs much more AFAIK. Yeah - well, I'm running Win2000 with 64 Mb of RAM and it's a very happy bunny. What I don't understand is how when it's idle, with no applications running, the task manager reports the memory in use as 46 Mb - how can it use so much just for its kernel + explorer? > You should find links to all the popular Linuces. Personally I use > RedHat, but I tried Debian (briefly, like for a few hours). There > are lots of different distributions. Which one you choose is up to you. What are the differences between all the different versions? What are the advantages of each distribution? > If you're on JANET, I don't think it'll be a problem. Ahh yes, all hail Janet and its 300k/sec downloading ;-) > There's a Linux mirror at Sunsite > (ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/packages/linux/). And also at http://www.mirror.ac.uk which seems to be faster for me. > Er, not especially in my experience. I've installed it about five or > six times and I don't think it's gone smoothly yet. Ah. If the install fails is it easy to get the system back, or will it trash the boot record? > > 3. Will it install on a FAT partition, or does it need its own type > > of partition? > > You can do either, I think. UMSDOS is the phrase your looking for if > it's going to be on a FAT partition. It's probably better to give it a > separate ext2 partition, to keep it separate. What is UMSDOS? Is it included in the distribution or do I need to get it seperately? And the only reason I would want to install to a FAT drive is to be able to read the files on the drive from DOS - creating a Linux partition would mean the files were only readable under Linux. Same reason I don't use NTFS with Win2000 :-) > Windows NT is rock solid in my experience. I've only seen about five or > six bluescreens in four-five years, and none of those were on my machines. I take it you've seen the famous photo of the airport departures screen ;-) http://members.xoom.com/dosuser/windows/bscreen1.jpg Although I think they might have been running '95. > It has to be said that with all this OS vs. OS stuff, I still find that I > use all the GNU tools on all the platforms I use. It seems that GNU > will outlast most OS's ;) Let's hope it does ;-) Keep it real, keep it free. Respect.