🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4e3feo$ht@news.umbc.edu> rrieba1@umbc.edu (Rob Riebau) writes:
> Dave Glue (daveacg@interlog.com) wrote:
> : On 18 Jan 1996 00:19:45 GMT, jjs@taipei.ucr.edu (Joe Sloan) wrote:
> 
> : >In article <4djce3$a26@steel.interlog.com>,
> : >Dave Glue <daveacg@interlog.com> wrote:
> : >
> : >>>BTW, "sources" claim that Klamath will  still be faster than the fastest
> : >>>Pentium. No other performance details were available and Intel declined  
to
> : >>>comment on rumors.
> : >>
> : >>Faster- on NT only, of course (OS/2 as well).
> : >
> : >Wrong - definitely faster on Linux, FreeBSD, netBSD, Solaris and SCO -
> : >and NOT any faster on win95 (yawn - nt? who knows? who cares? )
> 
> : From the available software selection, apparently more developers
> : don't care about Unix variants on the PC.
> 
> I love linux and use it at home (the low RAM, HD req, and lack of price 
> make it great for the clients on a home-based client/server LAN!!)   
> However, it looks like NT is starting to make a good impression in the 
> workstation market.  I'm no MicroSmug advocate, but I'll have to admit 
> that NT isn't bad.  I took an IBM education course on NT architecture, 
> and it is, at the least, desgined very well.  Plus, who knows where MS 
> will go with the POSIX support in NT?  I have only heard rumors that they 
> aren't going to do much with it at all and that it's only there to meet gov 
> regulations.  In any case, it is taking over a lot of workstation 
> environments that once where 100% Unix. 
> 

I think that POSIX compliance has something to do with those important little  
tags on pillows that say its illegal to remove them. 

I use NT at home on a Pentium and it is definitely better than Windows 3.1 and  
more stable and reliable the Win95. Its sort of like a industrial versus  
consumer grade difference. If I ran NT on a ready for prime time processor then  
I would feel comfortable using it professionally.

richard