From: Steve C. (stevec50_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Jun 16 2002 - 00:20:29 EDT
Shouldn't Win98, with all it's problems (who ever
heard of a finished program that won't start or shut
down?) be considered the beta OS and ME a finished
product?
I can never understand why anyone would like W98,
which crashed all the time but not like the improved
version, ME. That's not logical. Sure, 98 seemed like
a big improvement over Win95 when it first came out
but that's just because Win95 was so bad! I guess a
lot of you are afraid to try anything better, like ME
or XP and will always be stuck in the past.
I have never found W2K to be stable, if Pat prefers
W2K over XP for stability there is definitely
something wrong with the way he installed or is using
it.
--- Pat Presidente <pat.presidente_at_sd72.bc.ca> wrote:
> I totally agree with Andre'
> I run a dual boot W2K / Xp system on a 570E, but
> prefer W2K overall for
> stability and performance.
> ME is/was a joke foisted on the public by Bill to
> test the transition
> from 98 and NT to Xp. ME defintiely had the highest
> price Bill ever
> charged for a beta OS.
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:58:59 EST