 | | Re: Windows 2000 —Michael Lachmann
|
| | | In lugnet.cad, Rui Manuel Silva Martins writes: <SNIP> (...) already (...) windows (...) That's somehow new for me, since at home (I'm using a PII 350 with 128MB-Ram) programs like MLCad are definitly faster on NT than on 95 or 98. Sure the display (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Rui Manuel Silva Martins
|
| | | | | (...) You probably have a bad configuration on your Win95/98, possibly bad/slow/old drivers, try to updated them. The only advantage that you could have with NT is if you have more than one CPU. Since Win95/98 can't (don't now how to) use more than (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | (...) Ok. I'm running a PII 400 with 256mb ram, 12gb HD. I want 2000 cause of networking stuff and forced login when I get to college as well. NT doesn't support USB, which I need, and it also doesn't support a couple of other things (I forget which (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Rui Manuel Silva Martins
|
| | | | | | | | (...) A Bigger Hard Drive ? You have 12 Gig ! Linux Only requires about 128 Megs for system and programs (depending on which ones you will install) plus some extra 128 Megs (Maximum) of swap partition, but since you have 256 Megs of Ram, you can (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Matt Marshall
|
| | | | | | | | | <snip> (...) bet (...) OS is (...) lines of (...) I installed 2k on a 133 with a 400 meg hd, and had enough room left to install word 97 and a few games, and it ran great too. I installed linux on the same box and x wouldn't work with the grpahics (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm aware that this is not a Linux newsgroup, but I just have to comment this, as I find it somewhat misleading. I'm setting followup-to lugnet.off-topic.geek, which is a more suitable newsgroup. I'm sure you could install Linux on a 128MB (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | (canceled) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Ben Vaughan
|
| | | | | | On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 5:09:22 -0600, Rui Martins wrote (in message <Pine.GSU.4.10.10007...0@is-sv>): (...) Rui, Actually, NT and 2000 have much better memory management that 95/98. 95 and 98 will most likely only perform better on lower end machines (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.cad, Ben Vaughan writes: snip [...] (...) Ben (& everyone) thanks for the pointers. I'll do a little more research as I have a week or so before I can borrow an external SCSI burner for the backup job. I think I'm leaning towards 2k (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | | (...) Millennium is just a new win9x with some additional bells and whistles and will not have any "revolutionary" new things. I doubt the difference between win98 and millennium will be more than the difference between win95 and win98. Of course (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Ben Vaughan
|
| | | | | | | | On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 2:09:01 -0600, Selçuk Göre wrote (in message <3975621D.DD740346@s...ine.com>): (...) I'd agree there. WinME (Millenium Edition) is more of an evolution than a revolution. Win2000 is the bomb IMHO. (He said, typing on his G4 Mac. (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Ben Vaughan
|
| | | | | | On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:10:46 -0600, Tim Courtney wrote (in message <FxxIDy.7wF@lugnet.com>): (snip!) (...) Some folks can get *really* defensive of their favorite OS. That's all. (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | Michael, I believe the reason that NT is faster in big machines is that it can address large amounts of memory more quickly. When I was discussing NT with a Photoshop expert, he said that for 128MB+ machines, it is much faster in NT, as Win9x can (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Michael Lachmann
|
| | | | Hy Mike, I like the idea but I will have to have a deeper look into it ... With NT you will not have any problems using two CPU even if MLCad is single threaded (but it isn't some gui things run parallel) but in this case NT will properly give MLCad (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
