>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.
------ gbarnett@polarnet.com ------ 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