Re: Windows NT versus Windows 95

Subject: Re: Windows NT versus Windows 95
From: Matt Ion <soundy -at- MAIL -dot- BC -dot- ROGERS -dot- WAVE -dot- CA>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:06:42 -0800

On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:17:11 -0700, Victoria Inness-Brown wrote:

>I'm upgrading my PC, and am thinking of switching from Windows 95 to Windows
>NT, hoping that it is more stable. I've been told that almost all my
>programs will still work. Has that been anyone's experience? Is it more
>stable? I'll be installing the software Tuesday evening, so I'd appreciate
>timely responses.

NT is certainly more stable than 95. It also has significantly higher
hardware requirements (my experience wouldn't suggest anything less than
a good Pentium and 32MB RAM... more if you intend to run any serious
applications).

Most Windows software should work; some that relies on specific Win95
perks won't. DOS support is pretty poor - NT doesn't allow any kind of
direct hardware access, so any DOS apps that require it won't work.


Your friend and mine,
Matt
<insert standard disclaimer here>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posts: mailto:techwr-l -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu
Commands: mailto:listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g. SIGNOFF TECHWR-L)
Archives: http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html,
http://www.documentation.com/, or http://www.dejanews.com/
Subjects: JOB:, QUESTION:, SUMMARY:, ANNOUNCE:, or none of these.



Previous by Author: Re: TECH: TMP files that won't go away
Next by Author: OFFTOPIC: Boo!
Previous by Thread: Re: Windows NT versus Windows 95
Next by Thread: Re: Windows NT versus Windows 95


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads