david, at 19:32 on May 29 1996, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

BG> Does it work OK for you?

db> A bunch of text files telling me where else I can obtain HPFS tools for 
db> DOS?  Yeah, those files work *real* well!  ;-)  (I'll get around to getting 
db> the utilities eventually.)  The only binaries in the HPFS4DOS.ZIP that 
db> arrived here were various MS-DOS 6.x variants of the
"ASSIGN.COM" command.

Oh shit, I just checked, and it appears that I sent the wrong archive! 
I'll see if I can locate the correct file and send it to you as a UUencoded
netmail (no TIC file needed).  Sorry about that.  :)

db> 2.  It's a Windows application - I've long since gone
"PROTECTONLY=YES".

BG> What, no DOS apps or utes either?

db> None - that's what a DOS boot partition is for!

A PITA having to reboot though.  Why not compromise and create a "Boot
from A" session (will those work with PROTECTONLY=YES?).

BG> What could possibly consume your entire 32Mb though?

db> Admittedly you could argue that NT's underlying design is better than OS/2 
db> Warp's, but the problem with "better designs" is that they
generally 
db> consume more memory (look at the argument that OOP systems are supposedly 
db> always bloated compared to their structured alternatives).

Sure, but with RAM as low as $12/Mb now, does it really matter any more?

db> Basically, I estimate that I'd have far less free RAM (and consequently 
db> more swapping) with NT doing all the things I do now, than with OS/2 doing 
db> it.

Quite likely, but I can see even entry-level PCs coming with 16Mb (and
maybe even 32Mb) soon enough, and if necessary, I can't see too many people
baulking at an upgrade to 64Mb for another miserable $400 or so (which is
what a 4Mb SIMM cost just 12 months ago).  Interesting times, methinks.

BG>> All you'll need is a 64Mb swapfile as well, and away you go... :)

db> Of course .. and that swap file exists on a Flash RAM card, doesn't it...  
db> :-)

Good point.  Whatever happened to the much-touted flash-RAM of 2 years ago?

BG> Dunno, I have 8 processes running right now, yet memsize still shows just
BG> over 17Mb free (and that's with no swapfile either).

db> The equivalent under Linux would be around 20-24 processes with 16Mb RAM 
db> free;  quite a difference in the number of concurrent tasks with a much 
db> smaller resource requirement.  ;-)

Is that with or without a resource-hungry GUI running?

db> I'm playing with Linux at the moment in a number of roles - firewalling, 
db> and "universal file/printer services" (AppleTalk, IPX,
TCP/IP, SMB, etc.);  
db> works like a treat.  That's my focus - server stuff, not running crappy 
db> DOS/Windows apps.

Sounds fine for specific purpose use, but I can't see too many SOHO users
rushing out to buy it just yet.

db> StarOffice for Linux is set to be released as a freebie for Linux users (as 
db> a "Thank You" or something), and it's meant to be a
Microsoft Office 
db> clone/compatible or something.

A damn good move if that's true, too.

db> Should be interesting, especially if it includes a presentation tool (a la 
db> PowerPoint) - then I could reclaim that 250Mb DOS/Windows partition on my 
db> work PC...

Careful Dave, or you'll have Rod calling you a FRZ as well...  :)

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- MsgedSQ/2 3.30