On 26 Oct 2000, at 2:31, Chad Fernandez wrote:
> I think W98 works about the same as far as multitasking goes.... your
> not really multitasking until your running Unix.
W98 is closer to 'real' multitasking than W3.x, even W95 for that
matter. MS are taking more DOS and legacy away. But if they took
it all away, all we would have is NT (pretty good multitasker and
very good RAM eater) which would be incompatible with many
existing software - not that W9x has its own share of
incompatibilities!
How will NT run on 16M RAM and no swap? NT4 (SP6 IIRC) at uni
uses >60 just for itself, before any programs are started. But this is
probably including disk cache and other things. Still very bloaty,
esp on a 64MB machine; in the olden days of arachne chat, a
"Show All" could easily take ~15MB of RAM for IE.
> 64megs was about the minimum, which would put 128megs at about right. I
> got the idea that 256, they still considered BIG.
I did have 96MB RAM, until I recently sold 32MB (technically was
borrowing it from another motherboard). Windows98 (SE) seems
only a little slower, but you really notice it when going into games.
Q3A uses the HDD a lot.
I should be getting another 128MB DIMM soon, so put it up to 192
:-) [AMD Duron 650, 20G HDD, 3D Prophet II MX video card, DVD
drive] I've been sort of splurging with the money from my job, and
soon I'll be getting my tax-return, hopefully more than $AU700. :-)
[BTW The Aussie dollar is still hovering at record low levels, about
52c US = $1 AU. So now would be a perfect time for all of you to
come for a holiday/vacation. Remember its going into summer
down here! <G>]
But the 386s and 486s will keep me sane.
--
Ben Hood
http://i.am/hoody
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
