RE: [S] Windows 95 or Windows NT? > SUMMARY

Willem deWinter (dewinter@anhb.uwa.edu.au)
12 Mar 1998 11:49:00 0800


Terry's question reminded me that I still had to post my summary of the
responses I received on the same question I posted earlier.

Out of 10 responses I received, 9 recommended strongly to run Splus under
Windows NT if you're hardware is up to it (a PII system certainly is). Only
Brian Ripley expressed no clear preference for either W95 or NT, pointing
out that NT 4.0 is harder to manage and Windows 98 will arrive soon.

All respondents pointed out that NT 4.0 requires more memory than W95 and
recommended at least 96 Mb but preferably 128 Mb of RAM to run smoothly.

Reasons for preferring NT over W95 included: 1. NT is much more stable and
hence crashes much less often, 2. speed, NT is fully 32bit.

Finally, two respondents recommended that if you use a lot of graphics, it's
worth getting a fast, 8 Mb graphics accellerator.

Thanks to all who replied, you've certainly helped me deciding on my system
setup. I'm going for NT 4.0 on a PII 233/266 with 128Mb of RAM and an 8Mb
Permedia 2 (3DLabs) based graphics card.

Willem de Winter
Dept. of Anatomy and Human Biology
University of Western Australia
----------
From: Terry Elrod
To: "'s-news@wubios.wustl.edu'"; DEWINTER
Subject: [S] Windows 95 or Windows NT?
Date: Thursday, 12 March 1998 5:39AM

I seek advice on whether switching to Windows NT would be better for running
long S-Plus 4.0 jobs concurrently with other programs.

It's time for me to get a new PC. I've settled on a 300MH or better Pentium
II machine with 128MB of RAM, a machine that could accommodate Windows NT.
In truth, I am happy with Windows 95 except that some of my S-Plus (and
other) jobs are often long and Windows 95 won't give enough of a share of
CPU time to foreground tasks while S-Plus 4.0 jobs are running in the
background. Windows NT, I am told, offers "true multitasking".

If anyone knows of a way to force Windows 95 to give less CPU time to S-Plus
when it is running in the background, that would be terrific. (I know how to
do this for MS-DOS programs running in the background, but not for Windows
programs.) Otherwise, advice on whether Windows NT gives foreground programs
adequate responsiveness would be most appreciated.

I will summarize replies to the group. Thanks in advance.

Terry Elrod

P.S. A Unix operating system is out of the question for me, I'm afraid. ;-)

--------
Prof. Terry Elrod; 3-23 Fac. of Business; U. of Alberta; Edmonton AB; Canada
T6G 2R6
email: Terry.Elrod@Ualberta.ca; tel: (403) 492-5884; fax: (403) 492-3325
Web page: http://www.ualberta.ca/~telrod/
--------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was distributed by s-news@wubios.wustl.edu. To unsubscribe
send e-mail to s-news-request@wubios.wustl.edu with the BODY of the
message: unsubscribe s-news

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was distributed by s-news@wubios.wustl.edu. To unsubscribe
send e-mail to s-news-request@wubios.wustl.edu with the BODY of the
message: unsubscribe s-news