SPONSORED LINKS
I really don't think the APM is that much of an issue. Lets face it folks - if you're going to run NT 4.0 on *any* machine, it has to be pretty hefty right? Lots of memory, big fast CPU etc. What does that mean? Less power anyway, because these big CPUs/disks will whack your battery, simply because NT is big. I've been running NT 4.0 Server on my 755cx (75MHz @ 40MB) and it's just fine. Battery life is around an hour and a half, I run a lot of services, and this box is even a PDC and runs IIS3.0. Server runs very very well on it indeed. If you're traveling a lot, and thus need good quality APM - NT's not for you. Right now. And besides, if you're traveling a lot (or are on battery power a lot), can you really take advantage of NT's added-values over Win95? Security on files across the network? Networking? Domains? Remote management? PWS? WINS/DHCP? Clearly, a lot of people would just like to run NT4.0 for the sake of running it, but quite frankly, its not real laptop-friendly right now, and don't expect any decent sort of PnP until well into next year. So lets quit moaning. ;-) .rickt ---------- From: Bruce Stewart[SMTP:bstewart@sun2.bnl.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 1996 12:57 PM To: ssh@wwsi.com; thinkpad@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: NT 4.0 migration 1) Can I migrate from 95? Check Microsoft's web pages; they do not plan to address this until the next major release of NT. 2) Does APM work? Last I read, IBM was "focused like a laser beam" on this issue; if a solution has come out, I too would be interested to know. -Bruce