>I think you have the right idea, by the way. Test the MUD on Win95 (or >WinNT) and actually run it on a UNIX. That's the way I'm doing it >(though with OS/2 instead, which is more BSD socket-compatible). I'd love to just run it under NT, but with all the additions I plan on adding to it, it's just not going to be fast enough under NT -- I'm amazed at how many processor cylces NT eats up running the mud vs. Linux. For my purposes (being a network engineer in a Novell, NT, 95 environment it makes sense to use the tools I know) NT would be better, but if Linux will get the job done using a fast 486 (which I happen to have a spare) and NT would require a fast Pentium (I'm not giving up my new machine to run a mud!!), I'll use the money I'll save to take a vacation :) As a development environment, NT/95 and MS VC is hard to beat. I know the tools well, and I really don't imagine that I could ever get as much done under Linux -- at least not w/o tearing out what's left of my hair ... Microsoft has done a bang up job on VC 4.1 -- gotta give them credit for a great programming environment; even if I don't like 95's memory management, or NT's huge processor/memory overhead. ------ firstname.lastname@example.org ------ http://www.polarnet.com/Users/gbarnett/ ------ Insanity is doing something over and over; expecting a different result.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST