On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:39:01 +1000, "Lance Birch"
<zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:

>NT is so much faster than Win 95/98 that it isn't funny!!!

That is a ridiculous statement.  In fact, unless you have an obscene
amount of memory, NT is much slower because it eats so much memory
just standing still.  For example, my current installation of NT5
eats up 64M at boot time.  Even when I upgraded to 128M, it's no
faster than 98.

>NT is a good power Operating System.  It's lucky that Microsoft have finally
>come to their senses in dropping the 95/98 series and going to Windows 2000
>(aka NT 6.0).

NT 5.0.  And once you've tried NT, you'll wish you had 98 back.  Trust
me; I regularly use and write software for both, and 98 boots much
more quickly and uses far less memory.  As for availablility of
drivers for your weird hardware, better use Linux instead.

>I've never run POV-Ray under NT, but I'm sure that it would have speed
>improvements doing so.

Nope.  None.  In fact, because of the swapping thing, it will run
slower on moderately large scenes unless you throw memory at it.
POV-Ray is mainly dependent on FPU speed; the operating system has
almost no effect on rendering speed (especially if you render with the
display off.)

NT really is a crappy OS.  It is not suitable for desktops, and the
fact that MS is pushing it as the next desktop OS is proof of just 
how much they care about money and how little they care about users.
It's also not suitable for servers, because it crashes so often and
eats so many resources when idle.  So of what use IS NT?  Well, it
makes MS, Intel, and Micron a whole heap of money.  Isn't that enough?

Post a reply to this message