Author: Roberto Waldteufel
Date: 15:49:12 07/31/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 1998 at 14:38:09, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >Sounds like the operating system of your dreams is DOS 3.2... > >Of course, that might be too bloated for you... > >-Tom > >On July 31, 1998 at 14:20:41, Roberto Waldteufel wrote: > Hi Tom, Aha, you are sending me up now , but if I could have DOS with no 1 megabyte barrier problems and 32-bit mode operation, that would indeed be the operating system of my dreams. If DOS could function OK with only 1 megabyte of RAM for itself and the application program, I don't see why a supposedly more advanced OS should need to steal 20MB+ of RAM to do its stuff - that really is too bloated! I may seem somewhat archaic to you in my demands of an OS, but I see the efficient use of RAM (and other system resources) as the main purpose of an OS, not the quality of the GUI or the ability to multitask, although admittedly the latter is useful, probably much more so for most users than for me. It is surely not a great task to ask of an OS that it run a single application as efficiently as the resources allow, even if it is capable of running a dozen programs simultaneously with reduced efficiency as well? Best wishes, Roberto >>Hi KK, >> >>I'm sorry, but I cannot agree. Any operating system that does not allow optimum >>use of system resources is culpable in my book - and I don't call the inability >>to use more than 50% of RAM without all that swaping optimal use, do you? >> >>I cannot be satisfied with being limited to 32MB when I have 64MB, and if I were >>to upgrade to 128MB I still would not be satisfied to then use just 64 - I would >>want to use 100MB or more in that case, or else I would not buy the extra RAM. I >>think a competent operating system would be a better investment. >> >>Best wishes, >>Roberto
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.