home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: guysmiley.blarg.net!usenet
- From: warrl@blarg.net (Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin)
- Newsgroups: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.2600,alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.wired,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sy
- Subject: Re: Will anyone buy NT?? (Yes - Intelligent People)
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 02:38:21 GMT
- Organization: None -- just look at my desk!
- Message-ID: <4gr6a4$2sl@guysmiley.blarg.net>
- References: <4gb34b$1ns@news.ais.net> <VA.0000002b.030fade0@main>
- Reply-To: warrl@blarg.net
- NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup66.blarg.net
- X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
-
- Joseph Bissot <bissot@deltanet.com> wrote:
-
- >> Like Linux, I presume? What the advocates of 95 and NT forget is that the
- >> shit costs a lot of money, especially the NT. And you can't rule out the
- >> RAM costs, no matter how carefully one shops around. Let's face the ugly
- >> fact. Some people can't afford the requirements of NT. While the cost of
- >> the RAM will surely continue to fall, it's apparent to me that M$ will
- >> make even more bloated software demanding even more computing power
- >> faster than it can become affordable.
- >>
- >> Cost is the number 1 reason I use Linux.
-
- >Very true... but my time is worth far more than the cost of my hardware.
- >People who have important things to do can't afford the extra time. Linux is
- >a time intensive OS by comparison to NT. Never mind the fact that nobody will
- >build a turn-key anything on Linux.
-
- Oh, by the way, I spent the entire last week trying to keep NT from
- crashing. I wasn't entirely successful... it's run all weekend
- without crashing *by* *itself*, but if I run the System Resource Meter
- and actually try to look at any resources, down it will go.
-
- This is NT 3.51 with two updates.
-
- Tell me again about time-intensive OSes.
-
-