E11 / Windows ME question

From: ajp166 <ajp166_at_bellatlantic.net>
Date: Wed Feb 14 21:45:17 2001

From: Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) <cisin_at_xenosoft.com>
>Nevertheless, why unnecessarily slow down routine operations?


It's code bloat, artifact of oject oriented programming.

>> W95 will run on 386sx/16... I've done it.
>I've been meaning to play with that. How much RAM do you need?


The minimum is 4mb but 8 is about the minimum useful. I have
a printserver (w95, 120mb disk and 486dx/33) that is able as minimum
as can be useful.

>Was it as slow as expected?


It was slow but, If anything it was faster than I'd have expected.

>An associate (business tenant) wanted to use "HyperTerminal" for logging
>data from some lab equipment onto a 486 Compaq. When 98 REFUSED to
>install, I installed 95 without any problems. I wasn't strongly
motivated
>to try anything serious to get 98 onto it.


Actually there is 98lite {downloadable} which is a program that does
a scripted install of W98 plus a few things from W95. the result
can be a very small footprint and with some of the msisms (IE
and outlook express crap) omitted fairly fast.

W9x is a useable OS, so long as you acknowledge that it's like dos
in it's lack of protections for the filesystem or the kernel. Works
ok with well behaved programs, stinks otherwise. Also it likes ram
16mb for running stuff like netscape or IE and 32mb isn't bad.

My $.0002 is that NT3.51 sp4 or NT4 SP4 is a better OS than
W9x. I dont think Linux is better only faster evolving. Of all
the PC unix clones FreeBSD seems the most solid and
least bloated at least as a server.

Allison


>
>--
>Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin_at_xenosoft.com
>
Received on Wed Feb 14 2001 - 21:45:17 GMT