RE: [RollTideFan] Netscape vs Outlook 2K (non-Bama)(ANOTHER advantage)

[Hugh Wolfgang]

<<First off: My apology to the RTF membership for arguing with Hugh.  I *know* better.>>   Please accept my apologies for referring to you as a bumbling fool, Bill.  I interpreted your comments concerning running XP to be thinking that I was running a beta (which I was, at one time).  The released product is MUCH more stable than the betas were.     << Service Patches on Win 2k (Not to be confused with 'Patches' by Jerry Reed): Since I am not running XP to run a 'Windows Update' on, I would have had to have read about it to have even known they existed.  I need to be more up to date than that.  There have been three complete computing revolutions since Thursday.>>   There have?  Please explain what the three are.   <<The sheer volume of patches available should be a big clue that it isn't stable yet, Hugh.>>   Actually, you’re right about that… but…  the number of patches is actually LESS than was available for Windows 2000 upon its release to the public (not to be confused with Release to Manufacturing).  XP is MORE stable that 2000 was upon release.  Is it 100% stable?  Heck no.  Neither is 2000 though.  And just FYI… XP has better drivers for my hardware than 2000 ever had (which is what I get for not upgrading my sound card when Creative ran the chip manufacturer out of business).  Windows 2000 was never really all that stable for me, for some reason.  I don’t know why.    <<Win XP = Version 5.1?:  This is bammer math, isn't it Phil?  If NT 4/Win 95 are loosely considered version 4, and Win ME/Win 2000 are loosely considered version 5, wouldn't you consider the union of ME/2K version 6?>>   You’d THINK so, but I’m referring to the version number returned by the “ver” command from a cmd.exe prompt.  I don’t know why they didn’t call it 6.0… perhaps because it’s a “minor” upgrade when compared with the 95 to 98 upgrade, or the NT4-2000 upgrade.   <<SQL Server: Reread what I said.  You agreed with me and called it a 'new one'.>>   What I meant by “that’s a new one” was the concept of XP being required for SQL Server 2000.  I’ve never claimed that SQL 2000 required XP, and don’t know anyone who has.  That’s all I meant.     <<Personal Attack: Yes, whatever floats my boat.  I would rather be thick skinned than go crying to Mama every time someone disagrees with me.  That *is* my choice, just as only you can choose what you will do.>>   Sometimes choices are made for us, Bill.  But in that respect, you’re right.  As I said above, though, I did not intend the “bumbling fool” comment to be an attack as such… just that if you didn’t know XP had been released, well, where have you been for the last two days?      <<Since you called me a 'bumbling fool', let me ask you this: Did you read *any* of the replies to your e-mail last week?  Just wondering.>>   To be perfectly honest, I don’t know which e-mail you’re referring to, but it’s a good bet I only read a small percentage of them.  I don’t have the luxury of being able to read and respond to each and every message I get these days (stop saying “Thank God”  lol)…  I selectively read them, in fact, most of the time.