They *could* work well under specific conditions. Univerally however, I'd have to argue that they didnt.
As a techie, I knew how to keep them stable. Most non-tech people around me could not for any signifianct duration. On Jan 31, 2008 5:56 PM, Mike Gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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> ~ > -- ME2 ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
