 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)big Monoid ...and 305 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613478 Today 4 Topics 127503 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd forgotten about this thread...geez! I sound a bit fierce...sorry...:)... true they did employ the DEC VMS people...but they didn't "buy" them as such....(ever noticed that WNT (windows New Technology) is VMS back a letter..not many people know that or that NT is a updated version of VMS..)... As for "Good Design decision"...we could probably argue all week over this but I think it's a difficult thing to judge as we simply don't know the full details of whatever compromises MS had to make to get Windows to work at all... The main problem they had (and continue to have) is the large userbase they have to keep compatible with...if they could do away with this and simply start from scratch then they could come up with a solution as nice as QNX or whatever...But they don't have this option and so we get Windows how it is today.... Theres a really good book about the development of WIN NT3.51 that follows the whole process from inital idea to eventual delivery - I can't recall the name at the mo but I'll dig it out when I get home. & let you know....it's a great read & not at all dry/technical....Theres quite a bit of background into some of the design decisions that the team had to make.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hehe :) well, NT is way ahead of the legacy windows versions in driver handling and such. I'm just still a bit miffed that xp needs 512mb to do anything sensible.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, I'm only on 256MB and ain't having any problems and I'm running all sort of intensive stuff all day & night... Was running on 128Mb for a while on XP but it was a little sluggish...256 seems fine tho... (These are stupid amounts of memory BTW...the first machine I programmed for professionally only had 64K and you couldn't use half of that....the only good thing about being in computers for a long time is that it gives you a lot of perspective on these sort of things...1MB still seems like a lot of memory to me...)... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
XP is no worse than '98, no DOS though.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm happy to report Im downgrading today from XP to Windows ME. Im reformating my harddrive and it's about time for a change. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I use NT5/2000 or Workbench. I hate 95, I dont mind 98 but it's a pain at times, I hate ME to death, XP looks ok but no thanks. Windows 2000 suits me best. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The only major probs XP hs are: 1) Inability to ckeck system resources. 2) Problems locating driver files on it's own - usually needs you to browse to them, point them out, then rub the fuckers face in em! 3) Compatability with older software. 4) No fucking DOS.....I hate that! 5) Has probs with a number of 3rd party hardwares. Part from that.....it's sweet! 8op |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
