correct, I had very few problems w/ w95 oem during my last few months (after 3
yrs of much headaches, tweaking reinstalling, patches, etc...). However w/
Linux, if something happens to go wrong, you can fix it. May take a little
trouble, but once it's fixed, it's fixed (no problems so far). As far as I'm
concerned, Linux isn't some GOD of OS, but yet a system unique to windows users
that offers a platform that can be customized to one's needs w/o purchasing
expensive software. For what you save in $$, you spend in time, but you also
gain more knowledge of the inner workings of your OS. I'm just taking it
slowly now, got video, got sound, got ISP connectivity, got SO installed, so
I'll just make little steps, get some books, and maybe in a few months, I'll be
better prepared to tackle Linux more in depth. And this list has been a
lifesaver! To all willing to help out a poor newbie, Thanks!
-Josh
mshirley wrote:
> Perhaps we are overlooking the obvious here. A fresh install of W95/W98
> with
> the patches needed doesn't crash quite as much as you would think. I have
> been
> running a fresh install of W95OSR2 for several days now without a crash or
> reboot.
> I have noticed that when a lot of shareware is installed, it crashes more
> frequently,
> which seems to backup the rumor I heard once that shareware programmers
> sometimes
> modify system files slightly to detect previous instances of installation.
> It seems
> like this would affect the OS sooner or later.
>
> On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Dan Ferris wrote:
> | I have a question.
> |
> | After spending my day at work fixing some problems with Windows it lead
> me to
> | think about this.
> |
> | Why is Linux more Stable than Windows???
> | All I hear about is how great Linux is compared to Windows but none of
> my books
> | really explain WHY except that it is free.
> |
> | Linux is multi-user preemptive multi-tasking, multi-threading, and has
> memory
> | protection between applications.
> |
> | Windows is multi-user multi-tasking and multi-threading, and has memory
> | protection between applications.
> |
> | Linux never crashes. Windows crashes all the time.
> |
> | Now before you anwser. I want REAL anwsers. Not anwsers like "Well,
> Windows
> | sucks because Micorsoft is big and rich."
> |
> | Anwsers like "Windows sucks because applications don't check to see if
> they
> | should give up the CPU for another application."(JUST an example) are
> more
> | acceptable.
> |
> | I have run Linux for almost a year with no real problems at all. I
> have run
> | windows for several years with nothing but grief.
> |
> | Just curious thanks.
> | Dan
