home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!att!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!cruzio!aki
- From: aki@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
- Subject: Re: Speaking of Window NT
- Keywords: Microsoft, Window_NT, SLOW
- Message-ID: <4118@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>
- Date: 30 Aug 92 08:18:08 GMT
- References: <sqo1PB1w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> <17mnt5INNdki@agate.berkeley.edu>
- Sender: news@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
- Reply-To: aki@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <17mnt5INNdki@agate.berkeley.edu>, chiu@ucsee.berkeley.edu writes:
- > According to a friend who's running Window NT beta, it is slow as hell...
- > (he equated it to Window 3.1 running on 286 with 1MB of RAM) And mind you,
- > he's running Window NT on a 486DX-50 with 32 MB RAM and 1.2 GIG HD...
- >
-
-
- To quote Microsoft: "that's only because we have a lot of
- debuggng code in there. The final production version will be
- at least twice as fast." (source: a speaker at the Win developers
- conference at the Moscone center a while back). Now it's up to
- every one of us to either believe that or not. The way I figure
- it is, that either the above statement is true; or Microsoft
- made _a_big_mistake_ putting too much clock-cycle hungry security
- and intelligence into NT; making it an OS that only a 586/686
- PC can devour (or the Alpha, which is totally ridicolous for
- a porting target; but which _may_ and I stress _MAY_ be a way
- out of the DOS-nightmare).
-
- Aki.
- --
- / Phone: 408-662 9664 Fax: 662 9676 | "Aki" pronounced: Ah-Key. I know \
- \ 125 Searidge Ct #D, Aptos, CA 95003 | what I'm doing most of the time. /
-