<div dir="ltr">My main problem with Win95 was that it was a house of cards. Things could be running really well, then a bad upgrade or new driver could make the damn thing crap itself out.<br><br>Win2000/XP weren't bad OSes, at least they could be kept in decent shape, that is until you got a virus through your email or IE. :)<br>
<br>Jeffrey.<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Jonathan Hutchins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hutchins@tarcanfel.org">hutchins@tarcanfel.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Sunday 27 July 2008 12:22:24 pm Christofer C. Bell wrote:<br>
<br>
> Call me nostalgic for stupid things, but I really liked Windows 95.<br>
<br>
I did too, and ran it until a motherboard upgrade left it unbootable. It was<br>
very stable for me, and as we began running linux on more of it's hardware,<br>
we found that a lot of the crashes we attributed to "that darned Microsoft"<br>
were actually problems with the hardware.<br>
<br>
Never liked 98 much, especially it's habit of reconfiguring the hardware on<br>
each boot - much like mistakes being made today with user-space dynamic<br>
hardware configuration.<br>
<br>
My NT4 server has run for years without problems, but a failing hard disk has<br>
finally prodded me to run something new. With NT, the key to stability was<br>
System Admins who actually knew what they were doing. Plenty of paper MSCE's<br>
should never been allowed near a keyboard.<br><br>
</blockquote></div><br>-- <br><br>"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine<br>
</div>