Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 03:19:00 -0700 From: Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Re: Libretto 110, 8gb barrier
Quoting Gerhard Kapusta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 11:03:52 +0200 > From: "Gerhard Kapusta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Libretto 110, 8gb barrier > > Hi Carval, hi Raymond! > > I would not suggest to use a disk manager like EZ-Bios or similar things. Hmm ... I notice you've not provided any compelling reasons not to. Too many times I've had to use a DOS boot disk to rescue Win9x, WinNT or Win2k installations. Things get interesting if the system is unable to see the partition table properly (it does get mildly amusing when the bargraphs on Partition Magic go off the side of the screen and muck up the GUI's layout manager because the program can't figure out where the disk ends). > Why dou you not use WinNT or Win2000? The choice of OS is based on a variety of reasons. However, there are times you don't get a choice such as when you're stuck with a boot floppy when your OS dies for instance. Besides, WinNT has problems with hot plug, tends to load more slowly because of the additional memory management involved, and is a bit harsh on memory. Win2k has all those bells and whistles that many people will never use on a device such as the L100 and its a lot harder to trim down an 2k installation if disk space is a problem. Plus at 64MB RAM multitasking is nowhere near as efficient under 2k than 9x (the better memory management in 2k only breaks even with the raw efficiency of 9x at about the 128MB to 256MB region in my experience). Granted memory protection under 9x is nonexistant so yes if you are having problems that can be traced to this then sure NT may be the way to go, at a pretty significant speed penalty. > Both are reliable and stable, I dare say my laptops running Win95OSR2 and Win98SE are just as stable as the 2k and NT desktops I work with and, in my experience at least, on Pentium class computers with 64 meg RAM, Win9x runs most of the applications I've tested significantly faster than NT does (although I did do the tests on Compaq Deskpro 2000 desktops, they've got P166 processors, 64 meg RAM and ATA33 disk controllers so it is still possible to draw parallels). Conversely I've seen some pretty bad things happen under 2k especially if you use NTFS. > all > Libretto-specific facilities (suspend+hibernation, hot PCMCIA-swap, hot > dock, power management...) will work. That may be so (although not in my experience) but still, what has this got to do with the presence or absence of an overlay anyway? Sure NT/2k don't need an overlay to see past 1024 cylinders but when things go pear shaped and you can't shove the hard drive into another computer, isn't it safer to have it on there anyway so you can recover things with a boot disk? > I run WinNT on a Lib 100 and Win2000 on a Lib 110. The Lib110 with Win2000 > is a bit slower than the Lib100 with WinNT, but it is more comfortable and > more "modern". > Disk size is not a question, all 9.5mm will work without any disk manager > or > other obscure tricks. Umm ... what planet are we on? The drive overlay has NOTHING to do with the physical size of the disk and EVERYTHING to do with the disk capacity. I would take any advice you give on the topic with a really big grain of salt if you fail to make even THIS distinction. - Raymond ************************************************************** http://libretto.basiclink.com - Libretto mailing list http://www.silverace.com/libretto/ - Archives -------TO UNSUBSCRIBE------- Reply to any of the list messages. The reply mail should be addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Then replace any text on the message's subject line: cmd:unsubscribe --------TO UNSUBSCRIBE DIGEST------ Do above but with this on subject line: cmd:unsubscribe digest **************************************************************
