Re: Seeing VERSIONINFO under Vista?

In article news:<HNY4i.7250$H_.6092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Ching
wrote:
Indeed, between NT's lack of "gamability", device drivers, compatibility
with millions of DOS apps, as well as its greater RAM requirements ...

I ran NT comfortably 3.1 in 16MB - I probably had more when 3.51 came out, I
don't recall. I wouldn't have liked to try running '95 in any less.

... and overall sluggishness (only NT4 had acceptable performance after the
display driver was moved into Ring 0) ...

I never found NT "sluggish". I never used it for anything that needed
particularly high graphics performance, though.

NT's handling of low resource conditions is MUCH better than Win9x's. NT will
struggle through when '9x will just grind to a halt or crash.

AFAICS the notion that NT was slower than 9x or required a larger or more
powerful machine is a myth.

... since Win95 was so much more stable than Win 3.x and offered true
multitasking (threading) ...

That's certainly true.

... it's exactly what the market needed.

It was ideal for one market segment. NT worked better for business users.

Cheers,
Daniel.



.

Relevant Pages
Loading