home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.gdi.net!usenet
- From: Bloodstained Tierss <tierss19@gdi.net>
- Newsgroups: alt.2600,alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc,alt.crackers,alt.cracks,alt.religion.scientology,alt.cyberspace,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.wired,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows,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,alt.games.duke3d,alt.flame,alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.descent,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.bigfoot
- Subject: Re: NT or 95?
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 22:44:05 -0400
- Organization: Global Datalink, Inc.
- Message-ID: <316F14F5.B59@gdi.net>
- References: <3161C78E.478D@hydro.on.ca> <4kc4lk$m8@news.wco.com> <4kfsnu$7s3@hp01.redwood.nl>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pm2_13.gdi.net
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I)
-
- Fidelio wrote:
- >
- > LewM@PacX.Com (Lewis Mettler) writes:
- >
- > >Lisa Wang <lisa.wang@hydro.on.ca> wrote:
- >
- > >If you want to go slow use NT.
- >
- > >If you want unreliable operation use 95.
- >
- > >If you rather go fast and be reliable you will have to use OS/2.
- >
- > Fast and reliable, that sounds like Linux to me. Going fast until it
- > suddenly crashes, with no applications to run, not supporting the most
- > common hardware, that's OS/2.
-
- Well it would seem that everywhere I go I see this debate... Had it
- last night with a few friends...
- (if you haven't screwed with the software [read: screwed it up])
-
- Windows 95 - Fast, Unstable (but more stable than Win3.1)
- Windows NT - Slow, Steady, Damn near uncrashable
- Linux - Fast, Steady (if you can program. if not then it's useless)
- Great to tinker around with, Terrible for real work (no
- apps) Still can't beat Unix for Multiuser, but why bother
- if you are the only user!!!
-
-
-