Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Apr 2008 22:40 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 308146
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Windows NT 3.1 was not considered small and compact at the time. Compared to competitors like OS/2 2.0 and later or Microsoft's own Windows 3.1, NT 3.1's memory requirements were very high.
Mate, I said structure wise; it is very possible to have something that consumes more memory, and yet, code wise, is very compact. Its an easy concept, learn it some time.






Member since:
2005-07-12
Windows NT 3.1 was not considered small and compact at the time. Compared to competitors like OS/2 2.0 and later or Microsoft's own Windows 3.1, NT 3.1's memory requirements were very high.