Little value added for the cost I 100% agree. In reality they were only minor point releases most of which 95 could be updated to. But more problems than it's worth? There's too much to talk about there. In my experience though, 95*/98/98SE all worked very well. When they weren't, I usually discovered (a lot of) subpar hardware, or a myriad of poor choices in software installed. Norton comes to mind. On the consumer side, 98/98SE were gamers' preferred platforms well into XP's life. Well, if you disagree that's fine.
Vista is frustrating to work with. I'm not the speediest guy on a computer, but this slowness is killing me. -- Mike Gill > -----Original Message----- > From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:31 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Do Vista Users Need Fewer Security Patches Than XP Users? > > In terms of little value added, and more problems than it was worth > over the previous version? That's the underlying context here, right? > > That was my experience. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
