Sam Ewalt wrote:
>
> While poking around various DR-DOS sites today I was struck by the many
> varieties of DOS available and I'm wondering if there might be advantages
> for running Arachne with some of these other variants--like perhaps
> earlier versions with a smaller footprint. Or would you gain something
> there only to lose out better memory management with latter versions?
>
> Comments from those with expertise would be appreciated.
Not pretending any expertise here Sam, just truly serious strong opinion.
I'm writing this using NS2.2 on Win3.11 on DOS3.3.
All selected because they run MUCH faster than their alternatives on this
hardware. The fact that they all have MUCH smaller footprints than their
alternatives can be construed as pure coincidence if one wants to be thick
about it.<g>
I've commented on all this before. If your hardware is challenged, it's best
to be selective about what software to run on it.
I can show that DOS 6.2, which I run on another box is 6 times the size of
3.3 and in the area of disk operations many, many times slower.
I can show that NS3.04 (while it supports js better than 2.2) is twice the
size of NS2.2 and half the speed. Another coincidence ?
I wouldn't be dumb enough to load Win9x so I can't give any person numbers
there, but I have a feeling the results would be obvious.
Currently, I personally recommend DOS 5.0 because it does have distinct
advantages over both 3.3 and 6.2x.
There are many who still hold that newer and bigger is better and everyone
has their own rationalization for buying that P800 with the 40G drive. <G>
- Clarence Verge
--
- Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
--
