I don't know about NT, but I found a "disc leak" in Win'95.  "You
say a disk leak, you can have a memory leak but not a disk leak".
Well it seems that way.  I kept losing disc space, WITHOUT adding
any new files or systems.  I think I finally ran down the problem.
I installed MS Internet Exploreer Version 4, which I believe also
replaces Internet Mail, as well as some other things which I got rid
of.  Well, anyway, the IN mailbox is over 150 MEGABYTES in size!  No
wonder my disc space was being eaten up.  Either it doesn't compact
correctly OR  it gets increased to the size of the largest mail
download and stays there.

Can anybody verify this?

Nick (deleting inbox.mbx and crossing my fingers) Demos
[log in to unmask]
My opinions are my own and I stand behind them.
Well WAY back sometimes.
Performance Software Group
Tel. (410) 788-6777 Fax (410) 788-4476


From: Gavin Scott <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> This is somewhat off-topic, but...
>
> I remember when NT 4.0 came out how many people claimed it was so much
> more stable as a workstation and development platform than Windows 95
> was.  Lots of people I respect switched to it and reported vast
> improvements.
>
> I switched from 95 to NT over a year ago after Windows 95 melted down
> completely on me after getting more and more unstable over time.  NT
> was wonderfully stable in comparison.
>
> Now I've been running NT about as long as I had been running Win 95 when
> it started becoming unstable, and I'm starting to have all the same sort
> of problems on NT that I had on Windows 95.
>
> I'm having to reboot once or twice a day due to the networking system
> getting clogged up to the point that no data will transfer anymore,
> running FrameMaker results in window controls and display elements being
> drawn incorrectly until reboot, etc., etc.
>
> I'm beginning to feel that much of the perceived superiority of NT was
due
> simply to the fact that upgrading to it forced most people to essentially
> do a clean install, which resulted in a clean and stable environment, and
> that over time all the assorted software that gets installed onto the
> machine (and possibly later incompletely deinstalled) leaves you with the
> same kind of flaky patchwork operating system environment as Windows 95,
> with all the problems attendant there to.
>
> Certainly NT is much better in many areas than 95, but when it comes down
> to whether it is fundamentally more robust and stable when used in a
> real-life developer workstation environment, I'm not sure it's really any
> better than 95 was.  Install programs still vomit files all over the
disk,
> happily replacing whatever critical shared DLL files that they feel like,
> and none of NT's security or kernel features seem to be used to prevent
> applications from doing whatever their developers felt like to your
system.
>
> So, I'm interested in whether this is just me or not.  How are other
people
> finding the reliability of NT as a *workstation* platform over time?
>
> G.