OK the story IS old but more true today than it was then

Posted on 2003-07-17 21:48:45 by rob.rice
I'd say 'losers'. "Win98" is so big and slow... lol
I guess I'll have to give him a test app that will produce more than 99% usability of the hardware. I've seen Win95 run on 66MHz, and it seemed good. The fact that there are millions of lines of code doesn't mean that your pc is running all of them :) . And the fact that Win98 loads only the .data/.code that you use is a great plus to that 3.1 , I suppose :).
But , right now that XP is just too much :/ . I don't mean for space reasons, but for speed. It can be tweaked to disable all nagging animation, but still will produce bad results on old PCs.
Hmm. I had once made a test on my PC (win98se, 64MB, k6-2 450mhz). I disabled virtual memory. Only the minesweeper and the like could run, all other programs, that use 4mb or more memory, show 'not enough memory' message or directly crash. Am I to think that the OS uses 60MB just to run :|
Posted on 2003-07-19 02:50:43 by Ultrano