[luau] MSWindows

[Ben Beeson]

On Saturday 27 July 2002 05:10 pm, you wrote:
> > The odd thing is that for the most part, I have yet to find a real
> > justification for the cash in terms of productivity that was not achieved
> > with the release of Windows 95 and its corresponding office suite.
> > Windows 98 and 2K have achieved little more than an incremental  
resistance to crashes and have driven many upgrades and redos in the office 
in order to keep things moving.
>
> The argument that windows crashes often is no longer a valid argument.
> Win95 crashed often.  Win98 crashed less often, but ate your disk more
> often.  However, winNT/2000/XP don't crash when configured properly.
> Win2000 was the first usable system of these.  My first windows 2000 system
> went well over a year without a single crash.  

My point was that the appware functionality I needed was there in '95, the OS 
just wasn't able to run stably enough to keep me happy.  Combine that with 
the other problems I mentioned and that's where my dissatisfaction stems 
from.   I agree that win 2K is a pretty stable OS.  I haven't had very many 
crashes with it since it was installed at my work.  Most of the trouble I 
have had at work are network problems, although I have seen a two or three 
strange error messages that no none seems to have heard of.  In short, Win 2K 
is reliable enough to do what I need it to do.   It also strikes me as odd 
that a company with as much knowledge power as M$ has couldn't get the OS 
fixed sooner.  OK enough on this rant...

Cheers,

Ben