[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ProgSoc] buying computers
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Murray Grant wrote:
> > Anyone here can confirm the claim regarding the Maximum Memory Use factor
> > of the Win9x/ME series?
> I don't have any hard evidence, only a lot of doubt. Unless MS
> wanted to cripple the win9x kernal, I can't see any obvious reason
> why it would be limited to 96MB.
It's pretty clear that MS crippled the win9x kernel. Do any form of
networking benchmark under 9x vs NT and even if 9x doesn't crash it'll
still be much slower. No-one even contemplates running a server under 9x
and it's not just for stability reasons. It then becomes an issue of
whether or not they did it deliberately, to which the answer of course is
Funnily enough, when 95 was introduced the popular wisdom was "if you're
going to use more than 64M of memory then get NT". So if this truly has
increased to 96MB, well, congratulations to MS - that's a 50% improvement
in just three years :p
It's very obvious from even a cursory start-up-and-use-an-application
perspective that NT is much better at this sort of thing than 9x. I'm sure
it's not a 96MB cut-off though; I think it's just general better code
which only becomes obvious once you've got enough that it's not constantly
swapping to obscure the fact.
Bah. Use Linux.
- Nicholas FitzRoy-Dale, fresh from linux.conf.au :)
the more u think ,the better u worth.
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to email@example.com.
If you are having trouble, ask firstname.lastname@example.org for help.