home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!grebyn!daily!mfraioli
- From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
- Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
- Message-ID: <1992Dec29.220538.16406@grebyn.com>
- Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
- References: <1992Dec27.011721.23160@unvax.union.edu> <1992Dec27.171726.4660@grebyn.com> <1992Dec28.070638.15582@frog.CRDS.COM>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:05:38 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1992Dec28.070638.15582@frog.CRDS.COM> rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly) writes:
- >>describe. Other than that, though, you're right-- the system should
- >>just run slower. In my experience, this is exactly what happens with
- >>Unix machines. I find Unix crashes to be *very* rare, even running in 8
- >>or 12 megs on a PC. (and BTW, I have used SCO ODT 1.1 Unix SVR3.2 on a
- >>386/20 with 12megs of memory, and it performs quite well. That's
- >>running X windows, TCP/IP, and NFS too. So if NT runs as poorly as
- >>Steve describes in 8 megs, MS has their work cut out for them.)
- >
- >
- >Just as an aside, my home system, rmkhome.UUCP, feeds news to other systems.
- >One of the systems was a 386SX/16 that ran ESIX SVR4 with X-11 in 4 megs of
- >memory for 9 months before the sysop upgraded to a 386DX/40 with 16 megs.
- >
- >The system was slow, but he was running his modem at 19,200 baud without
- >dropping characters, feeding news to 5 other sites, and had 3 login terminals.
- >And he never crashed. Up for 9 months, 24 hours a day.
-
- Yeah, I think it will be a long long time before NT is anywhere near as
- stable as Unix. Like at least a decade. Anyone who abandons Unix for
- NT deserves what they get.
-
- --
- Marc Fraioli
- mfraioli@grebyn.com (So I'm a minimalist...)
-