----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Pemberton" <philpem_at_dsl.pipex.com>
To: <cctalk_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
> In message <410F7874.E2F25E18_at_brothom.nl>
> Bert Thomas <bert_at_brothom.nl> wrote:
>
> > "David V. Corbin" wrote:
> > >
> > > Quite true for Windows 3.1, 3.11 95, 98. [i.e. NOT an OS]
> > > Not true NT3.51, NT4.0, 2000, 2003. [i.e. Validly called an OS]
> > > Debatable for XP, ME
> >
> > Why debatable for XP, ME? They are based on NT as well, aren't they?
>
> XP = Windows 2000 with the "Teletubbies"-esque user interface
> ME = Windows 98, but about 1000x less stable and with more annoying
features.
> If I had to use Windows, then on sub-500MHz machines, I'd use 98. On
500MHz
> (or faster) machines, I'd use 2k. Personally, I prefer Linux though.
> Especially when WINE behaves itself and runs my CAD software properly.
>
> Later.
> --
> Phil. | Acorn Risc PC600 Mk3, SA202, 64MB,
6GB,
I found ME to either run stable or very unstable, its was very machine
specific. ME and 9x also had major problems if you loaded them up with 768mb
of ram or more.
Win2k runs fine on slower equipment if it has allot of memory and more then
one processor (My home built pr440fx motherboard with dual PPro 333 upgrades
and 3 x 128MB EDO/ECC ram comes to mind).
If your going to use Windows 9x, 98SE would be the optimal edition.
Received on Tue Aug 03 2004 - 06:53:12 BST