SPONSORED LINKS
> Given the availability of relatively large amounts of low
> cost disk storage, I am wondering how realstic it might be
> to try running Win95, WinNT, OS/2, or linux in a separate
> disk partition?
I currently swap between two disks with my 750C. First
has Linux and DOS/Win3.11, and the second has Win95 (rarely
used now). It's easy to run multiple OS's in separate partitions
so long as it is configured properly.
> A year ago my personal machine was an ancient/old/aging
> 386DX-33/387/8MB/650MB/ET4000/WD8003e system. I ran DOS,
> Win3.1, OS.2 2.1, 386BSD, SCO UNIX, and WinNT (beta) on it.
> Most of these packages (sometimes with a little tuning ran
> just fine) -- WinNT ran like a dead pig (even after tuning
> -- but I had less than reasonable config for WinNT).
Linux/DOS/Win3.11/Win95 are zippy (for a 486-33) due to 12MB
of RAM. I haven't tried OS/2 Warp, NT, or NextSTEP (though
the boxes are sitting on my shelf), so I can't comment on any
of those.
> Now I'm portable with a TP750Cs/486SL-33/12MB/720MB system.
> Disk is cheap enough I might upgrade again to 1,350MB disk.
> But, memory is still pretty dear, so upgrading to 20MB RAM
> is pretty unlikely for the moment.
The used memory market for 750's is relatively cheap. 8MB IC-DRAM's
go for $50, and 16MB's can be found (if rarely) for $100. I
would rather go for 12->20MB RAM than a 720->1300MB disk upgrade.
> Currently I run just DOS 6.22/Win3.1. But, I think it may
> be nice to get back into a 32 bit enviroment to avoid the
> constant need to segment arrays into 64K pieces to keep the
> 16 bit operating system happy.
I, being one of the more unusual laptop users, use Linux/X
with my 750C almost exclusively. GCC, XEmacs, and LaTex are
more than excellent substitutes for DOS/Windows equivalents
for me, and I have yet to experience any kind of software
or hardware failure under this configuration. I'm also
very pleased with the kernel level PCMCIA and APM support.
> OS/2 2.1 did a nice job for
> me almost two years ago. I wonder whether Win95, WinNT. or
> any other system might work as well in my limited notebook
> configuration? I could just go back to OS/2 for my own use.
> But it would be nice if other people could use my work --
> and they mostly seem to be moving toward Win95. WinNT may
> be the recommended Win95 development environment. But, I'm
> afraid WinNT may require too much resource to be worthwhile.
I would discount WinNT altogether. I've read many threads on
running NT on 755's and 760's on this mailing list, and while
it probably is possible on the 750, I would expect the
performance to be completely unacceptable, even with 40MB RAM.
Not to mention the lack of overall laptop support in NT.
You are definitely better off with Win95. If you truly plan
to do extensive development work on the road, you may want
to consider buying a faster laptop. If finance prohibits you,
then a 16 or even 32MB IC-DRAM upgrade might be the way to go.
> What would you recommend?
Regards,
Dave.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander J. Annala, Ph.D.
> Laboratory for Molecular Pharmacology
> University College London
>
--
Dave Ahn, ahn@indigo2.rad.bgsm.edu "When you were born you cried, and the
world rejoiced. Try to live your life
Medical Visualization Lab, Radiology, so that when you die you will rejoice,
Bowman Gray School of Medicine and the world will cry." -1/2 jj^2