Murray Lesser wrote to Jack Stein on 11-17-1999

ML>     According to the books, it takes more (minimum) RAM to run
ML> Warp 4 than it did to run Warp 3 (but 20 MB should be more than
ML> sufficient) and at least a 80486 chip (which you have), and somewhat
ML> larger boot drive (I have 205 MB, but the network stuff that I use
ML> is in another partition).  There are also some add-ons that came
ML> with Warp 4 (such as voice recognition--one of the many options I
ML> never bothered to install) that require a more-powerful CPU chip
ML> than either you or I have.  But I can't see why Warp 4 would run any
ML> slower than Warp 3 on your machine if you stick to the same class of
ML> applications.  I replaced the preinstalled Win95 with Warp 4
ML> (instead of with Warp 3) on my ThinkPad only because: 1) I had a
ML> DevCon freebie, and 2) there was more device support right off of
ML> the CD-ROM for some of the ThinkPad goodies.  Now that I have been
ML> running Warp 4 for a couple of years, I wouldn't go back (because I
ML> am used to it!).  For troubleshooting convenience, and because I had
ML> a second Warp 4 CD-ROM, I replaced Warp 3 with Warp 4 in my wife's
ML> "new" machine when I reconfigured it for her set of applications. 
ML> But if you are happy with what you have, why switch? 

There are a couple of differences in the default processes with Warp 4
- which you have complete control over - that would make a more visible
difference with slower machines.  One is the is SSMART or something
like that which is part of the cut down nefinity software that comes
with Warp 4.  Warp 4 also runs more LAN processes (many not needed!)
than Warp 3 did, especially if you don't have a LAN configured and use
only TCP/IP for INET access.  There are several of these trivialities
that would probably show up pretty plainly on a constrained system.  A
careful study of some of the info about config.sys that has been
compiled could allow you to trim the configuration and make a
significant difference. 

Will Honea 
--- Maximus/2 2.02