Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 31 Aug 1995 15:55:33 +0200 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Aug 1995 09:01:04 EDT John Atkinson <[log in to unmask]>
said:
>Steve and I had talked and thought it might be a good idea to get a
>sample version to check it out, although we certainly don't trust it as
>a standard yet.
For the KENTVM workload, I would definitely use Windows NT rather than
95.
>This is rather interesting. I'm not sure what good it would do for us,
>however. We certainly couldn't handle 'our' lists on a Windows machine,
>could we? Or maybe we could.
Your workload fits on a 486.
>And why would it be free? (And promoted by Eric?)
Argh! Shareware is not *free*, you're at least supposed to *pretend* that
you're a honest guy and you'll pay for it if you actually use it, even
though we developers know that it can't hurt to put an annoying banner on
every outgoing message in the unregistered copy, plus a one-list limit,
you know, just in case people forget :-) Anyway, I wouldn't recommend
running the KENTVM workload on Windows 95. This isn't what the shareware
version is designed to do, and above all this isn't what Windows 95 was
designed to do. Windows NT, however, is extremely robust. L-Soft
processes 850k messages a day on an NT LISTSERV (although the mail is
actually delivered on a VMS system).
Eric
|
|
|