Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
Windows 98 and NT require more ram to be faster than 95. Otherwise,
it's overbloated kernel and other system sucking resources will force you to hit
your harddrive (memory paging via swap file / disk) and that wil cause such a
slow down. Personally, I find windows 95 and nt have faster response times on
some windows vs my X.... all oses have their purposes, I personally favor Linux
with X11 rather than MS for my general internetting pleasure.
I only tried a few betas of Windows 98, like I said.. needs more ram.
:)
Carroll Kong
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Paul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, C.J.LAWSON wrote:
>
> > Well for what it is worth my own opinion is that 95 just like its forbears
> > is an app. loaded on dos and for this reason I think we should be talking
> > about whether or not dos is a true multi-tasking OS ... It certainly is
> > capable of becoming one. The question is, has it be implemented?
>
> Ever try Windows '98? Well, if you haven't, don't count on M$ ever
> learning how to design a real operating system. Yesterday I heard a
> commercial on the radio about Win98 being the OS of future businesses...
> Win98 runs one hell of a lot slower than Win95 and multitasks even worse..
> I don't know where M$ came up with Win98 running programs faster than
> Win95.. Win98 is a disaster; _never_ install it, it is a complete waste
> of time and money.
>
> Maybe Gates should fire all the so-called programmers and hire a few
> monkeys to get the job done! <I guess that comment was a little harsh,
> but necessay to get the point across>
>
> -Paul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: