KW> Heather James wrote in a message to All:

HJ>         I haven't seen a lot of discussion of the Binkleyterm for NT
HJ> beta, and rather than be off-topic, I was just wondering what echo I

 KW> Weird. Are you SURE that you have the SAME binkley.evt?

 KW> I'd like to hear more people talking about the NT 
 KW> version of Bink - I'm setting up a hub system, a P-66 
 KW> PCI machine, SCSI-II drive, 16 megs of RAM, and a 28.8 
 KW> modem, with Bink-NT running in a window. Christ, it's 
 KW> amazing. It's like running Bink-DOS under Windows, 
 KW> except IT WORKS.

I don't think there are many of us running Bink NT and most of us that do
are finding that it just sits there and works and works with no problems,
so we really don't have much to discuss about it. I really don't have a
clue as to why heather is having trouble with her USR sporster modem with
NT. I don't use USR modems and never have.

I like it better than any multitasking setup I've ever run the BBS under in
the past 10 years. Just lock the baud at 115200 and let it rip. The only
change I had to make in my Binkley.cfg file was to switch from BBS EXIT to
BBS SPAWN to get Max NT to load correctly. NT has superior multitasking
capabilites and -very- fast HD speeds. Squish 1.11 DOS tosses large mail
bundles on my system typically between 60 and 95 msg/sec. I use NTFS file
system. I picked up 145meg of Disk space on my almost full 1.06 gig HD when
I converted from FAT to NTFS. I would never again run NT without NTFS.

 KW> much higher memory requirements - I tried loading the 
 KW> 4.0 beta on the same machine, and it was a slug.


I run NT 3.51 with 32 meg of RAM. 16 meg of RAM is just barely enough to
get NT's heart beating, -especially- if you are running a slower IDE hard
drive. I run it on an Adaptec 2940W SCSI controller with an 8ms HD. The
equipment you attempt to run NT with really makes a big difference with
it's performance.


--- Maximus/NT 3.01b1