Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: is the

Author: Roberto Waldteufel

Date: 15:49:12 07/31/98

Go up one level in this thread

On July 31, 1998 at 14:38:09, Tom Kerrigan wrote:

>Sounds like the operating system of your dreams is DOS 3.2...
>Of course, that might be too bloated for you...
>On July 31, 1998 at 14:20:41, Roberto Waldteufel wrote:

Hi Tom,

Aha, you are sending me up now , but if I could have DOS with no 1 megabyte
barrier problems and 32-bit mode operation, that would indeed be the operating
system of my dreams. If DOS could function OK with only 1 megabyte of RAM for
itself and the application program, I don't see why a supposedly more advanced
OS should need to steal 20MB+ of RAM to do its stuff - that really is too

I may seem somewhat archaic to you in my demands of an OS, but I see the
efficient use of RAM (and other system resources) as the main purpose of an OS,
not the quality of the GUI or the ability to multitask, although admittedly the
latter is useful, probably much more so for most users than for me. It is surely
not a great task to ask of an OS that it run a single application as efficiently
as the resources allow, even if it is capable of running a dozen programs
simultaneously with reduced efficiency as well?

Best wishes,

>>Hi  KK,
>>I'm sorry, but I cannot agree. Any operating system that does not allow optimum
>>use of system resources is culpable in my book - and I don't call the inability
>>to use more than 50% of RAM without all that swaping optimal use, do you?
>>I cannot be satisfied with being limited to 32MB when I have 64MB, and if I were
>>to upgrade to 128MB I still would not be satisfied to then use just 64 - I would
>>want to use 100MB or more in that case, or else I would not buy the extra RAM. I
>>think a competent operating system would be a better investment.
>>Best wishes,

This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.