On Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:21:19 EST you wrote: >** Reply to note from kbf@xxxxxxxx 11/06/95 09:35am > >> First, it appears that the load time for the product is materially longer than >> current XyWin. While it is not too noticeable on newer, faster machines, it >> could be annoying if you load and unload the product a lot. Performance once >> the product is loaded is as good if not better than current XyWin. >> >I don't worry about load time anymore for anything. I just start my OS/2 office >machine each morning, mouse click on half a dozen icons (PostRoad mailer, Web >Explorer, PIM, Xy4, Describe, FileStar/2, etc.) and start work. With a multi-tasking >OS load time is largely irrelevant since you never have to unload. Now that we >are all switching to the newer OSs and Win95 is such a big hit I can't see this >being a problem for anyone. Perhaps the Win95 & NT users could comment. > >> Second, and predictably, the disk footprint is larger. I would not be surprised >> if a full install took 15-18 MB. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> K. > >Also, not a problem for me, although I do use a compression program (ZipStream) >on my OS/2 laptop because of limited disk space. 15-18 is not large, but it would >be good to have the option of a cut-down install. > > >Cheers, > >John Gordon > > >******************************** >J.L. Gordon >Department of Anthropology >The University of Western Australia >Nedlands, WA, 6907 AUSTRALIA > >fax: +61 9 380 1062 >tel: +61 9 380 2850 >email: jgordon@xxxxxxxx >******************************** > JG: How sure are you that Win95 can handle such a load with, say, 12MB of RAM? - Andy