BL> It doesn't even seem to slow down much! Win98, eat your heart
BL> out!

JB> there's a couple of tricks to that, what linux (some versions
JB> anyway) does is give the Xserver (the bit that draws the mouse
JB> and graphics etc on the screen) a higher priority than the
JB> ordinary user processes. this mkes the user interface more
JB> snappy without slowing down the applications noticably. (they
JB> acctally seem faster when they interact with the user) the
JB> other trick is to have the background jobs (like software
JB> updates) run with a lower priority. 

 I won't ask you how you do that! My guess is that it involves a lot
of typing in a really obscure configuration file...

JB> I don't think windows 98 has the concept of priorites, NT (etc)
JB> does.

 Actually, Windows does set priorities in the message queue... but of
course everyone gives his own appliction high priority which averages
out to no priorities. I sometimes wonder if Bill Gates and his huge
crew of dorks and dickheads has any intelligence at all. It's probably
like a bureaucracy, which is the only living organism where the
individual cells have high intelligence. but the organism overall has
no intelligence at all.

BL> It would make more sense to install the Linux motherboard
BL> *inside* the Windows box.

JB> :)

 I meant *two* motherboards internally networked by Windows. Linux
owns a modem and RAM, but shares the hard drives and everything else.
Such a cut-down Linux motherboard would only add $200 to the overall
cost, and solve all of Microsoft's sercurity problems. It's be cheaper
than a server, and let you run Linux as well as Windows.

Regards,
Bob

--- BQWK Alpha 0.5