🚀 go-pugleaf

I gotta ask you what the point of arguing about how OS/2, WIN95 
and NT running on 4 megs is, as you well know mobody in their 
right mind would want to run any of these OS's with that amount 
of memory, certainly you will not be very productive.

Now the 8 meg argument interests me.  WIN95 works great on 8 
meg allow there is a lot more productivity happening at 16.  
Same argument with OS/2.  As for NT, I think you are not 
looking at NT's niche.   High end server type machines are 
typically the target for NT.  I don't think any MS literature 
would ever advocate NT as a entry level home user OS.  
Basically don't make apples to oranges comparisons.  I don't 
think they are very useful.

SMD

/NEP








syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
>In article <3tnn0r$f...@lynx.unm.edu>, Dan Ehrig <deh...@mirac.unm.edu> wrote:
>>Kevin Speichts (kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca) wrote:
>>
>>: Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
>>
>>OS/2 doesnt run will in 4 megs.  NT doesnt run at all in 4 megs.  Or 8.  
>
>NT _does_ technically run in 8.  A friend of mine got masochistic one time
>and tried this.  It takes 10-15 minutes to load, and after pressing 
>CTRL-ALT-DEL to login, expect about a minute delay for the login prompt to
>appear.  Do not attempt to run anything under such an NT system.  So, to be
>absolutely correct, NT runs in 8, but is not usable (far less usable than
>OS/2 with 4 megs).
>
>Happy to add a bit of technical trivia.
>
>
>Farewell-
>
>
>Aaron
>