Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 12:52:22 -0600 (CST) From: "Lee Crites (AEI)" <leec@adam.adonai.net> To: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Had the shotgun out and pointed at my -current/SMP box... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980123124559.16809C-100000@adam.adonai.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980122164624.9232A-100000@dylan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Stephen Roome wrote: =>> So I'd bet NT saw all of the memory *and* was able to use it. We =>> just couldn't. => =>Perhaps a more reasonable explanation would be that the NT =>kernel and most of the NT applications are such huge bloated =>pieces of software suffering so much freeping creaturism that =>well over half the memory that they have allocated for =>themselves is unnessary, not used and therefore if the data =>stored in it gets corrupted it doesn't matter and hence it =>doesn't crash. (at least not for that reason anyway!) => =>[Still I'd not have considered NT as either a competitor for =>FreeBSD, and illustrious must surely be sarcasm!] The entire NT reference was sarcasm! I'd rather use DOS than windoze! ;) Of course, I'd rather use FreeBSD than either! =>> My first FreeBSD box was a converted NT (3.xx) box which labored =>> under only 8 users. Under fbsd I tested a max of 70+ users. =>> (p200/128meg for those who care). => =>That's overkill, you must live somewhere hardware is cheap! This is what I was told was needed for a windoze nt box running an isp with 8 dial-up lines. It was a copy of a machine I saw at an operating isp which ran like your average windoze box (read: like a dog). Actually, that's a lie. The isp box was, if I recall, a p133. I figured my p200 would make it acceptable... And, no, the hardware *wasn't* cheap! It is now, but wasn't then... Lee
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.980123124559.16809C-100000>