��-����-�-�����������������������Re: 640k is not 'nuff...�������������������Ŀ
���-��������������������������������������������������������������������������
��-�> Here's What You Said��.
� Well, my roommate ran '95 on his 386DX/33 with 8 megs of RAM about the same
� speed that OS/2 3.0 ran on my Pentium/60 with 8 megs of RAM.  Whatever you
� do, don't run it on 4 megs, but that holds true for even regular windows
� nowadays.

I run Windows 3.1 on my moms system with 4 meg ram, granted all I need to do
is program, and like to listen to music at the same time, but it still runs
great.  Win 3.1/3.11 beats OS/2 and 95 on 4 meg.

� And the best part is that you don't have to configure anything 99% of the
� time, unlike OS/2.  If you have a protected mode DOS game with it's own sound
� driver, it *will* work under '95.  How many people are still trying to get
� sound to work with Doom under OS/2, Including id software?
�� -��-��������������������������������������������������������������������Ŀ
���> Now Here is what I Say��.                                              �
                      ��-�����������������������Reply�Requested���������������

Not I.  And I believe you forgot the original reason for my post.  First off,
I am not making this a Win95 vs. OS/2.  Im simply stating the facts -- Win95
will offer VERY VERY VERY little advantages to the office. Every benchmark
rates Win 3.11 so much better than Win95. Graphics, to Disk, to Load time, to
anything.  Even PC Mag (As biased as they are) has said that 95 is not as
fast, and will be of little use to the office.

Look at it this way.

Win 3.1/3.11:

- Fast Loading & App Loading
- Runs great on 6-8 Meg RAM
- Ugly Interface, but everyone is used to it.

Win95:

- MS Has even said that you need 12-16 meg to get it to run great.
- Application loading/processing is slower
- Disk/Graphics are slower
- Purty Interface (Reason of 12-16M RAM).

� �����Black Knight���� �
	�PP	�  [VSB] @1512046  	�PP	�