win32file.pyd Device Error on W95

[Carlos Ribeiro]

On Wednesday 19 February 2003 15:48, Marie-Claude Savoie wrote:
> As an experiment a while ago I put Linux RH V8 on a P166.  This computer
> had been used to run both W95 and NT and it performed reasonable well under
> both.  Speed was not a problem under windows.
>
> A few things that I noted when installing Linux.  The distribution was
> Huge. Not very good for older computers with smaller drives.  The
> installation process lasted forever and I mean forever.  Lastly, it runs
> like a pig and a dead one at that.  The desktop GUI was soooo sloooow. 
> Applications were slow to load and slower to run.  The machine was no
> longer usable.  I was not very impressed after hearing all the hype :(
>
> I'm sure an experienced Linux person could write a laundry list of things
> to do to improve the performance, but the way I feel about it now is that
> W95 is a much better option.

I have a lot of experience with Linux installations, and I have to say that I 
share your conclusions - albeit with a little regret and frustration. Linux 
itself has little to do with it, though; and I think the problem is twofold.

First of all, Linux distributions suffer from the "everything including the 
kitchen sink" syndrom. They tend to be bloated, for several reasons, not all 
of them good. It makes no sense to pack everything in a bundle just because 
stuff is cheap (free software, a few cents per CD). As a power user, I love 
to have the option, but then it quickly becomes unmanageable - lots and lots 
of package files, with myriads of dependencies, and shazam! your new one 
hundred TB HD is full of things that you'll never use.

The second problem is X Windows. Everyone knows that X is big, slow, and too 
complex for the intended application - a simple desktop for everyday use. 
Overall, Windows 95 did a much better job performance-wise; it's less stable, 
but it runs nicely with less memory and CPU consumption than an equivalent X 
Windows installation. (please note the 'equivalent' here; I'm not talking 
about barebones X. A decent Window manager has to be included, not to mention 
good font support, etc.).

Now, if you can live with a basic Linux installation, it is blazingly fast. 
But most people can't live without X. For lower end PCs, the best solution is 
to install older distributions (that had much less bloat than today), or to 
use the PCs as console-only, text-based computers; dedicated servers and 
appliances are good examples.


Carlos Ribeiro
cribeiro at mail.inet.com.br