Hi Melissa, Friday, March 7, 2003, 2:42:28 AM, you wrote:
MR> Without getting into a discussion of the stability of NT/2000/XP, most MR> people who recommend against WinME will claim that Win98/SE is more MR> stable than WinME. Obviously, this has not been my experience...not MR> even close. Any anti-ME experts out there care to explain this to me? OK, this is rather a fishy subject, so I'll be brief. First, ME has it's own bugs, but most of it's problems were caused by people installing over 98. As a clean install it was marginally better, but is demonstrably slower (depending on the choices you make running it - if you turn off all it's whizzy new features, then it's not slower than 98). However, you mention that you only had to restart it once a day. I've been using NT since 3.51, but had to support up to 50 computers using a variety of systems (all MS) from 95 to 2k. Invariably, you could leave an NT/2k system up, 24/7 for months as opposed to daily rebooting of the DOS-with-a-GUI 95/98/ME systems. And that's why people will tell you it's cr*p! ;-) -- Best regards, Mike ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
