From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:28:23 GMT

In <1993Jan5.234912.7841@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:

>In article <1993Jan05.075016.28032@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.040741.27996@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan04.184825.3260@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>
>>>I don't remember Steve trying to make any sweeping statements about
>>>NT.  Part of what he said was with slightly less than 8 megs of memory,
>>>NT refused to boot and with 8 megs he managed to boot up NT but its
>>>performance was too bad.  I don't find any FUD in these lines.  Because
>>>his observations were so in direct contradiction to some of the posts
>>>from NT advocates including Brian Sturgill, I found his experiment
>>>very interesting.  It was not definitely a FUD.  Is reporting personal
>>>experiences spreading FUD?
>>
>>    Steve made several statements such as (paraphrased, as the
>>originals have expired - Steve can correct me if he objects to
>>this portrayal) "NT just doesn't run in 8 megs."  This is a
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Why is it so much troublesome for you?  This statement is an
>overgeneralization from a personal experience, and within a proper
>context it might not sound as blatant as might sound out of context.
>If his own personal experience was such that NT didn't run with
>8 megs of memory, the above statement is not *false* and certainly
>not *blatantly false* as you think.

>>blatantly false statement - I was very surprised to see Steve
>>say it, as he usually strikes me as one of the more rational
>>people on this newsgroup.
>>
>>
>>>>>You refuse to believe anything bad about NT and ignore it. Then, since all
>>>>>the bad things have been ruled out of order.....NT must be great! 
>>>>
>>>>    Let me say this:  My own personal experiences with Windows NT
>>>>are in direct conflict with the reports that you've published here.
>>>>I've been running it for months with no major problems.
>>>
>>>Tell us about your configuration and let's see what's the difference.  
>>>I hope it has more than 16 megs of memory:)
>>
>>    I'm doing development on a Compaq 486/33 with 12MB of memory -
>>I've been using this system fairly heavily on a daily basis for
>>almost four months now, and I've crashed it once.  I also run
>>it less frequently on a Northgate 386/33 with 12MB.  I've seen
>>it run in 8MB, but don't have direct experience with that
>>configuration.
>>
>>			-Phil
>>

>Hey, you only have personal experience with a system with 12 megs of
>memory and you'are calling Steve liar????

>Is NT really bootin up on 8 meg systems?  Is there anybody who has
>personal experience with this?


Yes, I do. Until just recently I had only 8 MBytes in my office
PC. I ftp'ed the installation directory from the CD on my SGI 
Indigo to a scratch directory on the PC, and did the install from
there. 

After the installation, I tried the included applications and 
a few of my own. I didn't notice any problems. Memory is a
bit tight, agreed, so that NT becomes slow or refuses to start
applications if you run too many of them, but otherwise, it
worked quite well in 8 M.

I wouldn't recommend using a machine with 8 M only at this time,
especially if one has to use the Win16 / DOS subsystem, but that's
from a developers point of view.  I wouldn't run Windows 3.1 with
less than 8M nowadays, either.  On the other hand, I've used 
Windows 3.0 on an 1M 286 for quite some time, and was quite
happy with it.

--
      o      (     Wolfgang Strobl    Wolfgang.Strobl@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394
     /\        *   GMD - Gesellschaft fuer Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung mbH
   _`\ `_<===      Schloss Birlinghoven, P.O. Box 1316,  | #include   
__(_)/_(_)___.-._  D-5205 Sankt Augustin, Germany        | <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy