From: rbs{at}snippets.org
To: c_echo{at}yahoogroups.com

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 Charles Angelich wrote:

> Microsoft did put out W95 without enough testing.

That's an understatement. The worst of it all was that W95 was actually
more stable and reliable than its successors! W98 was, IMHO, unusable. The
sad part was that W98 introduced some things that quickly became really
necessary (USB support for one), which effectively rendered W95 obsolete.
Finally, WinME came along and managed to make it back to the point of
being almost as reliable as W95 - which is to say, not very...

I feel guilty sometimes that I'm sitting here at home using a Win2kPro
machine while Mrs. Stout's machine three feet away is stuck with WinME.
Sadly, her machine simply doesn't have the resources to run Win2k. My
machine runs for weeks on end and hers crashes at least twice a week.

> Now that I have cleaned up my W2K install it never crashes here (many
> months now). I've only had the machine and OS for about 6 months but it
> seems to remain stable all of the time even when apps lockup and I have
> to invoke task manager to 'kill' them.

My experience as well... I have found, however, that if you really long
for the instability of Win9x, you can partially achieve your goal by
installing Win2k with a FAT32 file system rather than NTFS. It's still
better than Win9x, but the Fat32 does render the machine much slower and
noticeably less stable. It makes me wonder how many of Win9x's problems
might have had to do with a poorly designed file system...

-------------------------------------------------------------
Consulting: http://www.MicroFirm.biz/
Web graphics development: http://Image-Magicians.com/
Software archives: http://snippets.snippets.org/
  c.snippets.org/   cpp.snippets.org/      java.snippets.org/
  d.snippets.org/   python.snippets.org/   perl.snippets.org/
  dos.snippets.org/ embedded.snippets.org/ apps.snippets.org/
Audio and loudspeaker design:
  http://LDSG.snippets.org/   http://www.diyspeakers.net/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05