In article <000b01c09be2$38d485a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter S Tillier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 8:24 AM
>Subject: RE: [ql-users] QPC2 and floppy drives
>
>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Malcolm Cadman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >> Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2 and floppy drives
>>
>> >> Indeed ... if you are lucky you can proceed. Yet usually, when you
>kill
>> >> one, it then wants the whole lot to go down :-(
>>
>> That is usually an advantage :o)
>>
>> Norman.
>>
>> PS. Customer phones up support desk :
>>
>> Cust : "Hello, I've just installed Windows 98 on my PC"
>> Supp : "Yes ...."
>> Cust : "My PC has stopped working properly ..."
>> Supp : "You've already said that !"
>>
>> :o)
>>
><snip>
>Well, apart from the floppy read problem, 98 seems, on our family PC at
>least, to be a whole lot more stable than Win 95. At work I use Win NT 4
>and find it much more stable than either - still I suppose it would be since
>NT prevents one process accessing another's data space (which, in their
>wisdom, M$ allow 95 & 98 to do). I suppose ME's the same, but I don't have
>a copy to find out.
>
>Ugh! Call Win 95, 98 OSs 'cos I don't.
Hi Peter !
Nice to hear from you again :-)
I find Win 95 is more stable, and Win 98 is more sensitive to getting
its DDL's in a twist; amongst other things. OK when its working !
NT is the most stable, we run our network at school on that - although
it does need a technician support service to keep it all going.
Getting back on topic - how is QPC2 v2 on Win 98 or later and/or NT ?
--
Malcolm Cadman
