[A83] Re: Assembly Studio 8x [OT]
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
[A83] Re: Assembly Studio 8x [OT]
> Do you have an old copy of NT then? Something that runs on a P100 with
40mb
> RAM? :-)
Unfortunately, 95 is probably your best bet for Windows on there. I think
if you had at least 128mb RAM then NT would run fine, but I wouldn't try it
with only 40. Heck, even GNOME or KDE would crawl on that. 95 ran alright
on the P133 32mb laptop that I just sold.
I actually do have a legit copy of NT Workstation. It came with the VC++ 6
Professional (I guess MS knew that it sucked to develop apps on 95).
If you mainly do programming, then you might be happy running Linux (or
FreeBSD) using XFree86 with the FluxBox window manager:
http://fluxbox.sourceforge.net/
I've never used it myself, but have been told by friends that it's really
nice. It's based on BlackBox, which is a fast, light window manager.
Overall, BlackBox is probably my favorite window manager. It's really fast,
and looks cool. It doesn't have a lot of features, but looks like FluxBox
added all the cool thing you wished BlackBox had. I still have some screen
shots. xdisc is a program I wrote that interfaces with XMMS (available on
my website):
http://david.maridia.com/linux-good.png
http://david.maridia.com/xdisc-blackbox.png
http://david.maridia.com/xdisc-bbkeys.png
> I think I'll buy a new PC late summer...
http://cr.yp.to/hardware/advice.html
> My favourite is still Win98SE Lite, and then follows your list. Win95 OSR
> 2.1 is also very stable. Know someone who runs at work a P266 with about
as
> much RAM (that probably does it) as (mega-)clock-cycles. He uses about
only
> MS-Office97, MS Internet Mail and News (no viruses), Seti and off coarse..
> IE.
Yes. RAM is the key to having a fast computer. The more RAM you have, the
less time the disks have to be accessed. Disk access is about the slowest
thing a computer has to do. Of course, I don't think 95 actually uses more
than 128MB, so you need a better OS to take advantage of it.
> BTW, I AM searching for a DOS-emu, since that would probably be more
> stable. When the DOS program crashes / loops / whatever it isn't running
in
> the same process, like with the DOS-window now.
On NT, everything is seperate. A rouge application usually won't bring down
the entire system.
References: