> I've been using Win98 (and Linux) for three years now and I have
> come to the conclusion that neither of them are any more reliable
> than DOS and Win31...

RG> I disagree with this. I've been running Win98/2k and Linux for
RG> a lot longer than 3 years.

 Slow learner, are you?

RG> All versions of windows have crashed on me for one reason or
RG> another on AT LEAST a weekly basis. The Linux boxes tend to run
RG> for MONTHS without a reboot, and even then it's usually been
RG> caused due to a power failure. 

 I have no opinion of Linux run from the command line. That was for
1980, and I have moved on.

 I use Linux as I do windows, in a GUI under Xwindows and KDE. When
a Linux program crashes (as it does, regularly), it is of no advantage
to me that only that particular desktop has crashed. To fix it, I have
to revboot the whole fucking thing. 

 As for Win98 versus Win31... Win98 has vastly superior recovery.
Most of the time, if an application crashes you can just dump it and
keep on truckin', even reload the app; where Win31 died horribly and
permanently. But against that, you can reboot a locked Win31 in ten
seconds while it takes a full minute to get Win98 up and running when
it *does* crash... and to add insult to injury, it checks the hard
drive and rewrites the registry.

 As well, it seems to me that win98 crashes what are *supposed* to be
bug-free programs more often that Win31 ever did. For instance, in
buggering around with networks, I crash Win98 fairly regularly. Win98
has locked WORD, for Christ's sake! To me, this makes perfect sense.
You have a program ten-times larger,,, thus ten-times more chance to
stuff up.

RG> Linus Torvolds obviously thinks the same way, which is why
RG> Linux doesn't have a registry.

 Why do you keep telling me what I already know? What Linux*does*
have (or perhaps it is only the SUSe incarnation) is a pause while it
checks all the config files and does a quick whip-around the hardware,
*exactly* as Win98 does in checking its registry (which Linux does not
have as such, named as such, but has afew megabytes of *exactly* the
same thing in the /etc/ directory). I hope I have made that clear to
you.

Regards,
Bob

--- BQWK Alpha 0.5