RE: [Circle] Win95??

From: Gary Barnett (
Date: 08/20/96

On Monday, August 19, 1996 6:07 PM, Katzlberger Thomas[] wrote:
>You wrote:
>> I am just curious, how effecient does circle run under 95? Does
>> anyone have a mud up running win95 with a significant player
>> load? I wuld like to check it out. 
>> I just think windows is the last thing I would run a mud on. Hell
>> it eats up my 64megs ram just running simple C programs and other
>> stuff.
>It eats up 64 MB ??? Wow ! This is more than I expected even from 
>Microsoft. Doesn't Win95 have a virtual memory system ?

Chuckle.. Be reasonable folks. Just cause you don't like windows doesn't mean it'll magically allocate
10 times as much memory as the same code under unix.. Thanks for the laugh though.. needed it
after this Monday's network problems :)

One last thought: A lot of people on this list like to knock Windows.. Maybe you should look at the
O/S you use .. namely unix for the most part.. What a mixed up bunch of command line utilities that
aren't even the same between versions. I imagine you waste as much time remembering which version
of unix you are using and which command line options do what on what machine as you'd waste waiting
for MS's pretty pictures to show up .. Now I can't speak for you, but pictures are easier than words.. a
lot of studies have been done on that subject... Now if you are just talking reliability, Unix blows windows
away.. no disagreement there.. and that's the reason I run my mud on unix .. not windows.. but develop code
on it? No thanks.. I'll keep the hair I have left. and I'll keep my MS development environment too. Thanks,
Jeremy -- the conf.h setup for win32 has made my life much easier :)

my two cents


- - (4000)

| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
|   |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/07/00 PST