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

Reply via email to