Soon to be Making the Transition to Linux or Making the Transition to FreeBSD
Alright, so Windows NT isn't Linux, but it is better than Windows 95. I know that's not saying much, but since I've already invested a bit of money for Windows software (I started out with Win95)... Well, I'd hate it all to go to waste.
First things first, if you have less than a Pentium with 32 MB of RAM [and about 150 MB of free disk space], don't bother trying to work with NT. It won't happen. That is, unless all you want to get out of NT is a motivation for suicide. Microsoft would have you believe otherwise, but NT 4.0 won't run well with a less powerful configuration. If you really want a multi-tasking operating system for your 486, I suggest Linux. If you have less than that, I suggest Caldera's OpenDOS. Both of these alternative, not to mention free, multi-tasking operating systems have tons of software, much of it, if not the majority of it, free.
Okay, going from Windows 95 to Windows NT with less than 64 MB RAM, I took a performance hit. Sure multi-tasking is worse because NT chews up resources like candy, but it's more stable by far, and, in the end, works out for more productivity. Yeah, backwards compatibility is not as good, but with the tons of free software out there on the Internet, I don't have a hard time finding NT-compatible versions of the software I need.
Note: About hardware - I have pretty standard, aka generic, hardware, and my NT installation went without a glitch. All the drivers I needed were included on the CD. The only problem I had was with my printer, but, with a little tinkering on my part, I am happy to say that it also now works. Be warned, however, if you have less than a standard hardware configuration than I do. Be sure to check the NT hardware compatibility list.
So I get about ninety percent of the software I need from the Internet. That problem's taken care of. Now, about that performance hit. First, I'm no longer on a network, so I killed all the networking services that NT insists on running on startup. Second, I replaced the Explorer shell with this nicer looking and more resource efficient shell replacement called OpenView. The result: I'm using about 12 MB's of RAM when I'm idle, not bad on any platform when you're running a graphical interface. Under 95, I must note, that I was able to get it down so that the shell was only using 10 MB's. BTW, I'm still on the hunt for other useless services.
Okay, so NT doesn't come with a lot of software, or more appropriately, it doesn't come with a lot of free software like Linux. But, as I said I get the majority of the software I need from the 'net. And it doesn't have the functionality of Unix-like operating systems or the superior graphical interface of X. But I've alleviated that somewhat with Unix for WINdows, a set of file and text utilities that also includes the Korn shell and telnet. I also have a resource efficient and very configurable virtual desktop manager, that makes my environment feel a lot like X, and, with the addition of X-Mouse, there's no obvious distinction with the behavior of my application windows. If you've taken a look at OpenView, you'll realize that it looks an awefully a lot like the AfterStep window manager for Linux. So, on a superficial level, you might mistake that I'm using Linux with the AfterStep window manager. Check it out and see if you can tell the difference.
In addition, I have Vim and a port of the Unix ftp, and I've also been working with a beta of Console Telnet, though it isn't at the point of being regularly usable, at least for me. Combine these with Unix for WINdows and its utilities, as well as the New Technology Shell, [and all my Windows applications,] and I've got a half-decent working environment. In other words, I can pretty much do everything I need to do while in console-mode, well except surf the Web, which I do with my favorite browser. I do have Lynx, but I prefer using Opera when I'm having fun.
Nevertheless, despite this and the fact that NT is on par technologically with Linux and BeOS, I find myself looking at the latter two for my eventual primary OS. Linux has better memory management and more stability, as does BeOS in addition to symmetric multiprocessing and serious multimedia capabilities, which I think will be very important in the near future in computing. What I get with either of these is a system that never crashes and multi-tasks [seamlessly] without a lot of overhead, meaning I don't have to upgrade my hardware, and I get more work done.
Note: I haven't crashed NT yet, though I have crashed many applications. Nevertheless 16-bit applications seem to run fine for the most part (e.g. AOL 3.0, Tera Term 1.3, Opera 3.0 beta 11, and WS_FTP 4.50 work well - I've had to use 16-bit winsock apps because AOL95 isn't compatible with NT - but note that these versions are relatively mature in development), but compatibility is still a problem for a few applications, both 16-bit and 32-bit, and the virtual machine that allows you to run 16-bit applications uses all of your CPU, but this is the sacrifice one has to make for a relatively stable operating system.
Copyright © 1997 Mark Santos. All rights reserved.