From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,89226195d95fba21 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Subject: Re: Operating Systems Date: 1997/07/27 Message-ID: <5re5a9$24$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 259211260 References: <5rcimf$a3j$1@news.nyu.edu> Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >Richard, this is quite wrong, what you say is true of Win95, but very much >not true of NT. One of the huge problems with NT is that it does not have >plug and play, and cannot definitely figure out what your configuration >is and support everything you have. I noted that my comment was more true for Windows 95 than NT. >But to say that NT is much easier to install than Linux just does not >match everyone's experience by any means. No doubt when the new version >of NT comes out with P&P, things will be better, but by then Linux will >also be much easier to install. In fact, as far as I know you (Richard) >have never installed Linux from a Redhat CD ROM onto a PC -- it is much >smoother than you imagine. I've seen the install. It is indeed relatively smooth, but still relies a lot on the user to know the details of his configuration. NT, as you say, does not support a lot of things, but is better at correctly configuring itself when it encounters a configuration it does fully support. >Experiences on Alpha are pretty irrelevant, ... unless the choice is whether to run NT or Linux on a Alpha.