I don't know about all the mucky details, but I don't know of any integrated
gui in dos, let alone anything eating up 12M.  I think we'll all agree that
windows eats memory, which is a tradeoff for the gui and other features, but
dos was pretty trimeed down.  Maybe not as powerful or stable as linux, but
I wouldn't call it a memory hog.

Ken

><goggles> You apparently don't have a clue. First off, from personal
>experience there's a 10-20% speedup on the same hardware. Secondly,
>the dos memory handling stuff isn't even *close* to Linux. Remember
>extended and expanded memory? Those concepts are still in there, just
>hidden. On top of that, you've got the gui eating up a good 12M of
>your memory.....I've run Linux on an 8 meg machine without a problem.
>Try using Linux for a while, and maybe reading the kernel development
>archives, before you go making claims like this.
>Shalon Wood
>--
>People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die.
>--Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban

Post a reply to this message