- #WIKIPEDIA OS MARKET SHARE HOW TO#
- #WIKIPEDIA OS MARKET SHARE DRIVERS#
- #WIKIPEDIA OS MARKET SHARE WINDOWS#
Macs were better for stability, but only let one program do real work at a time.
#WIKIPEDIA OS MARKET SHARE WINDOWS#
Remember, this was back when we were all rebooting our Windows boxes once a day at least while doing real work. Here was a new OS and it was super fast at some of the tasks that made computers really grind to a halt back then. Seriously, I remember back in the day using BeOS and being completely floored by it, for about ten minutes. That might *just* be my perception, however the project has manifestly been "on the way" for a very long time.
#WIKIPEDIA OS MARKET SHARE HOW TO#
I'd be quite interested in playing with Hurd but my main issue is that I don't perceive there being a very cohesive effort around it now, so I wouldn't know how to contribute or whether it would help at all.
Linux gained this capability through FUSE but Hurd had it baked naturally into the design AFAIK. For instance, it's fundamental to the design that users can replace OS components with their own, so custom userspace filesystems were easily supported. That work had some interesting ideas but last rumour I'd heard was that they'd stopped *that* port and that someone was working on a new microkernel that better fit their needs. Since then they went down the route of porting to the L4 microkernel (generally considered faster but I suspect YMMV depending on design & implementation of what you run on top of it). But that version was based on the Mach microkernel. Hurd got to a state where it was actually usable - there was a Debian distro of it, you could run X, you could run various applications, it was *real*.
#WIKIPEDIA OS MARKET SHARE DRIVERS#
The SIQ was a notorious OS/2 problem and would usually lock it up at least every couple of days (and that's if you weren't doing anything particularly interesting).īetween OS/2 and a properly setup Windows 95 system, without any 16-bit drivers or (to a lesser degree) programs, the stability difference was negligible - but Windows 95 ran equally well on 1/2 to 2/3 the hardware and had _vastly_ better compatibility.
Sounds like you didn't actually use it much. OS/2 Warp 4 had some wonderful applications and did very well on both 386 and 486, never crashed (it was more stable than most workstation UNIX back then) It wasn't until IE4 beefed up the shell that 16MB+ became necessary.Īt the same time, OS/2 basically required 16MB (you could limp by in 12MB), and NT4 20MB. The original Windows 95 release was quite usable in 8MB of RAM. Windows 95 would not run very well on a 486 unless you had at least 16MB RAM (where 4 and 8 was the standard back then) especially if you started adding more applications or device drivers. I worked at several computer stores back then and it was the exact opposite actually.
0 kommentar(er)
