Ancient machines turning on (was Re: eBay strikes again...)

From: SUPRDAVE_at_aol.com <(SUPRDAVE_at_aol.com)>
Date: Sat Oct 31 22:43:16 1998

win3.1 has been pretty stable for me. win95 still seems too fragile in my
opinion. everytime i have to reboot without shutting down, i pray it comes
back up ok. i also cannot understand how a dos session can totally hang
win95... i run OS/2 at work and i've never had a crash. sometimes the machine
will hang due to network problems. so far, i've had the machine continously on
for two weeks and still going. nothing from microsoft could do that! I've
migrated to version 4 now which is better at getting around a hung
application.
david

In a message dated 10/31/98 10:04:45 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
maxeskin_at_hotmail.com writes:

> I guess experiences vary wildly in terms of stability. I've never
> had a problem with DOS or Windows 3.x in terms of stability. Some
> crashes, but usually when running junky programs. Win95 I might trust
> in terms of not crashing, but the filesystem is so unreliable, I stay
> away from it. Linux, I'm running on this Compaq 386sx/20 with 6MB RAM,
> and it's never crashed. Slackware. I dunno. I seem to be lucky with
> not having things fail. I've plugged in connectors backwards many a
> time, and have never fried anything. The SMPSU cut out. But then, how
> many people would say DOS is unstable?
Received on Sat Oct 31 1998 - 22:43:16 GMT