Article View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Article #20493Re: NT or 95?
From: Jason A. Ruiz
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:39
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:39
58 lines
3678 bytes
3678 bytes
On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, Ed Redondo wrote: > First WinNT requires a minimum of 20mb. With 20mb it will run, but will be > slow. For optimum use you'll need 32mb. I don't know which Windows NT you've been running...NT will run on 12(workstation version not server)....16 gives a big boost and 20...runs fine (of course I have no idea what and how many apps you were ruuning so it might have been different for you) > WinNT is *intended* for central-servers and *multi-user* systems, not > single-user machines. It does *not* have *full* backward-compatibility > with 16bit applications in its present iteration. Note, you can get a > Win95 GUI for WinNT, or a Win3x GUI for that matter. It also has the > option of using HPFS, which will save hard drive space without compression. failed to mention though it will run all win95 apps (ok ok I know there are 1 or 2 giving people problems...don't plan on running the 32 bit vesion of Qmodem)...but I think your analysis of it being intended for multi-user systems is a bit off...yes it's great for them...but it also works great on it's own... > Win95 is intended for single-user machines with *some* of the features for > central-server operation (user profiles with user-names & user-passwords, > etc.). Optimum operation of Win95 occurs at 16mb and has much better > backward-compatibility. Also allows the use of long-filenames even though > it uses the FAT system which will loose you some space on large hard > drives. you failed to mention that WinNT is also a thousand times more stable...and even while not running under optimum conditions stll performs better than 95...which is actually A LOT slower than 3.11...it also runs MOST 16 bit apps...and provides true 32 bit processing...(95's backward compatibility is due to the fact that it's still not a TRUE 32 bit OS....there's LOTS of 16 bit code which made it's way in...besides which...with Memory prices as low as they are now....there's very little compelling reasons not to throw in an extra 8 megs of memory or so and run NT.... > NOTE: This is why the consensus is that 1gig drives should be partitioned > into 400-500mb partitions. This gives you cluster size of 8kb vs. 32kb for > 1gig unpartitioned drive. > > Hope this can help you make a decision. > > ============================================================== > The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its > credibility. And vice versa. > > Religious practice is an individual's right; *not* a right > of the public to be imposed on other individuals. > ====================================== Ed Redondo ============ > > >
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<Pine.SOL.3.91.960419184619.12640D-100000@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu!jruizShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu!jruiz From: "Jason A. Ruiz " <jruiz@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows,alt.wired,alt.religion.scientology,alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.duke3d,alt.games.descent,alt.flame,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.cyberspace,alt.cracks,alt.crackers,alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc,alt.bigfoot,alt.2600 Subject: Re: NT or 95? Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:39:12 -0500 Organization: The University of Texas at San Antonio Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960419184619.12640D-100000@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <4l8si4$1sc2_003@cs1.electriciti.com>