On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:50:17 +0300, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
wrote:

There's no conspiracy here. Windows NT and its successors represent a
far more complex (and technically superior) operating system than the
modified MS-DOS environment of Windows 9x.

Correct.

128MB of memory, and 4GB HDD", but they did not, rather specifying
faster cpu (and corresponding motherboard busses, etc) for
the purposes of speed issuse.

NT will indeed run on that configuration. XP won't because that's not
enough disk space, as I recall.

No. XP SP2 wants around 2.5GB of disk space for the OS itself, but 128MB is
definitely too small for it.


XP needs nowhere near 2.5GB, unless of course you leave
system restore and other misc things turned on which slows
it down even more. I was only comparing an optimally
configured XP, giving XP as much "help" as possible to try
to compete.

For the ideal XPSP2 config, 128MB is certainly too little.
The statment was only an example of what MS might spec,
since they did not spec 256MB for XP either.

More reasonble comparison would be old system with 512MB vs
brand new w/512MB. It's no contest, Xp is slower. It is
true that if you were copying massive files or some
particular task, 9x can be sluggish. Single events do not
make for the average or typical user experience.