At 23:23 15-07-01 +0100, Jawed Ashraf wrote:
> > NS 3.1 can be observed in Task Manager while it's running. While
> > it doesn't
> > impact both CPUs very much it does claim practically all
> > available RAM and
> > virtual memory (99%!). Before I start the application there is
> > approximately 670 MB of free RAM and over nearly 1 GB free unfragmented
> > swapfile available to it. During the scan only a few hundred KB remain
> > free. NS eats all the rest. That's just lousy software engineering.
>Lousy install/W2K more like.
It's not a lousy installation on my system. I know what I'm doing.
>W2K only does one thing properly: run SQL Server... (smile)
So you disagree with Microsoft's ad campaign touting the greater
reliability of Win2K over Win98? Haven't you seen Microsoft's print ads?
A two-page spread in the 6 Feb 2001 issue of PC Magazine illustrates this
(p36-37). It features a picture of a BSOD captioned "If you find yourself
missing the downtime, cut out and tape to monitor." The text includes the
statement "NSTL test results show that Windows 2000 Professional is 13
times more reliable than Windows 98. Which means users will need far less
Who am I to argue with Microsoft? <w>
Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia
http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all
these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things.
The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object."