No subject

without 16MB of virtual memory space. Also with Win3.1, resource 
accounting is non-existent, memory counts for applications would 
include a chunk of the GUI and vicea versa.
 
> 1. Win 3.1 does not release resources properly, and so after running 1 or 2
> major apps you'll probably need to reboot.

There was no clear division between GUI and application for Win3.1 
(Win95 is better, Win98??)

> 2. Win95 has all of the sortware you speak of - but as one mega chunk rather
> than componentised - whereas Unix/Linux has it seperated into it's seperate
> sections - thereby giving u choice.  In any case, you don't really _need_ to
> know about these - you can get distro's that automatically install one or the
> other of various WM's.

WRONG! You still have video drivers for Windows. Oh.. and someone 
forgot that Win95 actually has TWO window managers. Yes, progman.exe 
still lives...
 
> > The way I see it, before linux become viable for desktop use, someone will
> > have to combine these three technologies into a single compact efficient
> > package.

I think you will find that there is an extra layer of interface 
between applications and the video driver (the "X protocol"?) which 
is required for network support. You really need to compare 
Win95+Carbon Copy (or similar program) to get the equivalent to X.

David Campbell
=======================================================
campbell at torque.net
Check http://www.torque.net/parport for all Linux parallel port solutions.
(also check http://www.torque.net/parport/archive/current/)
Current project list:
a) Catch up on the ZIP Plus backlog (drive back from waranty)
b) Maintain Linux ZIP drivers (need to update docs)
c) sleep
d) real life