200LX -- was: 10 year rule

From: Teo Zenios <teoz_at_neo.rr.com>
Date: Wed Nov 17 17:59:50 2004

----- Original Message -----
From: "Computer Collector E-Mail Newsletter" <news_at_computercollector.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: 200LX -- was: 10 year rule

> >>>> I've heard that Windows users expect to have to re-install their OS
> applications every month or so, and get a crash at least once a day.
> I'm no MSFT lover by any means. But if that's the latest you hear about
> Windows, then you're talking to people who haven't used it since the
> "vintage" Windows era of 3.x... or at least Win95.
> Once again, for emphasis: I'm no Microserf! Win 2000 was good; WinXP is
> good. I've had it loaded for about a year (on a mediocre $500 clone) and
> needed to reinstall anything.

I find most of the people bashing Windows or Mac OS do not even use them to
know what they are talking about. Win2k is very stable and probably does not
need reinstalled ever, not sure about XP since I don't use it. The older Win
9x machine would need reinstalled every 8-12 months if you constantly
install and uninstall apps, change hardware, and try every new device driver
out (basically the typical game user). I find that even the older Mac OS 7.x
and Windows 3.1 would be reliable enough for real work assuming you used a
stable set of drivers and shut the machine down at the end of the day (to
avoid memory leaks). I have yet to see an consumer OS that did not crash
when using buggy hardware/drivers or buggy software.
Received on Wed Nov 17 2004 - 17:59:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:37:17 BST