|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
"Gary Fritz" <fritz@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>Win98 is just a dressed-up Win95, which is mostly just a cosmetic
>update to Win 3.1, which is a pretty face on top of DOS. All of them
>have fundamental flaws and weaknesses in their design that make it
>extremely difficult to write solid and reliable applications.
>...
>WinNT, on the other hand, has almost nothing in common with the Win9x
>family. It was designed from the ground up as an honest-to-God
>operating system, by people (NOT from Microsoft) who had actually
>done that successfully in the past. It's far more bullet-proof than
>Win9x ever dreamed of being.
>
>Win2k, as I understand it, is the next generation of WinNT.
>Everything I've heard says it's better, faster, and more solid than
>WinNT, even though it's barely out of the lab. It sounds as though
>Microsoft learned from their betters and took NT to the next level of
>functionality and reliability.
Anyone have any reports regarding running Win2k on a 486 machine?
I assume it's an idea to be laughed out of the house on sight,
but I couldn't resist asking.
As I've mentioned here before, Win3.1 makes a nice wrapper for
TS4, if that's the one and only application running, and does
just fine on that old 486.
Jim
|