Spider wrote:

> Ron Parker wrote:
> >
> > And of course it wouldn't
> > run on Win9x, which still seems pretty popular for some reason.
>
> hehe, in my case, I'm running win 95 from the reason of... Size. the installed
> size of 95 compared to either NT workstation(not an alternative due to driver
> problems) and 98 is big. I hope win2k will address this a bit...
>
> don't bother responding to this, since the discussion would probably end up in
> the OS wars. and I'm too OT as it is.

Win2K?? He he he he. Poor guy (not trying to continue an OS war, just bring up a
few facts).

Win2k is just Windows NT 5. They had been hoping to be able to drop the 95 OS and
force everyone up to NT, but it aint going to happen this round. Win9x is alive
for a while. Of course, since Win2K is just NT 5 renamed, you can then take from
that the info that it will require even more resources than NT 4, and thus you
will not be wanting to run that either.

(Not trying to OS bash, but getting frustrated having to program on Windows. Oy,
my head)

Now, as far as size... You might just want to get good ol' Linux on your box (if
by size of the OS you mean performance overhead in general). A couple of months
ago I switched my home system from Win95 to dual boot to Linux and ended up
staying in Linux most the time, especially for POVRay. This was on a 133 w/ 48 MB
RAM.

Oh, and like you I had stayed away from NT (despite having a few legal copies for
home) due to the weakness of my system. Once I put on Linux & Enlightenment it
seemed so much more responsive than with 95 (OSR/2).

(Oh, one other major reason for 9x staying around is becuase of WinNT's
archetecture just not allowing decent performance for games on lower end systems.
But then again, you all already knew that)

I almost forgot. To get things back on topic: Linux, of course, does SMP. And
clustering. (smiling as I dangle these extra carrots). A "Cray-matching Linux
cluster" anyone??? http://slashdot.org/articles/99/03/10/109215.shtml (drool,
drool)

Post a reply to this message