At 06:28 �� 3/1/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> > > > From: Thierry Godefroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Thu 03/Jan/2002 16:06 GMT > > To: ql-users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be > lea rned) Love Live QLs > > > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:27:56 -0000 , Norman Dunbar wrote: > > > > > Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? > > > > Apart from being slowest than Win95, > >My experience is that as long as you ahve at least 128Mb of memory then >Win2K outperformas any of the Win9x variants. True 100% (And I do have 256 Megs) > > more bloated (if at all > > possible) and giving you no way to run in TRUE DOS (a MUST on > > desktop PCs for QXL !), nothing is wrong... > >This point I have to give you! Not true since NT/2K really allows you dual booting on the same drive with REAL dos (even FreeDos) which is by far better than the pi**ing around they call dos under Windows 9x > > > > > Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? > > > We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. > > > > It may run "nicely", this is not to say that it makes a good usage > > of the machine ressources: re-install Win95 and compare the speeds > > of the same software under both OSes: you will be _amazed_ by the > > speed difference... > >My laptop is is dual boot (with the OS in separate partitions so they do >not interfer with each other). The performance under Win2K is noticeably >faster than under Win95. I do have 256Mb of memory on the machine and I >think Win2K makes better use of extra memory than Win9x. You GOT to see the DOS C68 version compiling under CMD ;-)))))) >Dave Walker > > > >_______________________________________________________________________
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus 6.0. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.312 / Virus Database: 173 - Release Date: 31/12/2001
