Is it software cost or hardware cost that keeps you from running NT on your
laptop? Or simply a desire for power management features? (I learned to
live without power management. Yes, it meant waiting a couple of minutes to
boot up on the airplane, but that was far less inconvenient than using
Do you run NT 4.0 on something else (a desktop somewhere) so that you know
what it's like?
If you were able to run NT 4.0 on your laptop, would you still actively
mourn the NeXTstep user environment?
Joseph S. Barrera III (email@example.com)
Phone, Redmond: (206) 936-3837; San Francisco: (415) 778-8227
Pager (100 char max.): firstname.lastname@example.org or (800) 864-8444
From: Rohit Khare [SMTP:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 1997 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: dat need fur speed...
> From: CobraBoy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: Joe Barrera <email@example.com>; 'Dan Kohn' <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
> Now let's compare this to my *absolutely stock* Win'95 Micron.
And on the other hand, underneath the invective, CobraBoy is usually
at the truth. Even if he can't aim the Reply All button to the list itself
I have to dramatically lower my expectations when I use my Win95 box.
I agree NT is more stable, but it's not on my Compaq Armada 4120 laptop.
* I expect it to crash 3 times a day
* I expect to have to reconfigure file open dialogs to my 'usual'
and filetype settings every launch
* I can't cut-and-paste HTML and RTF reliably between most applications
* Get used to random network-related alertboxes
In general, it's minor annoyances that combine to wear down my patience
Windows UI. I won't even address the stability of the OS, since that's too
That's why I mourn the NeXTstep user environment (and Taligent's stillborn
effort) even though the APIs might end up winning. Application development
efficiency is only part of the picture...