SPONSORED LINKS
At 03:05 PM 11/20/96 -0600, Rick Tait wrote: >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. That's exactly what APM helps. It stops the disk when it's not being accessed, slows down the CPU when it's not needed, etc. >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? The reason I want it: NO 16-bit CRAP IN THE KERNEL! I'm sick of programs dying because they are getting lost in 16-bit land. I want real processes, not the mistakes of DOS. >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. ;-) Yep. I know. I've been doing NT 4.0 since it was alpha (first time it was on my CX, too!). ssh -- Steve Hultquist, Founder Worldwide Solutions, Inc. Systems, Network, Internet, and Business Engineering Boulder, Colorado mailto:ssh@wwsi.com +1.303.581.0800 http://www.wwsi.com/