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.
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. :)
Jeffrey.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Jonathan Hutchins hutchins@tarcanfel.orgwrote:
On Sunday 27 July 2008 12:22:24 pm Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Call me nostalgic for stupid things, but I really liked Windows 95.
I did too, and ran it until a motherboard upgrade left it unbootable. It was very stable for me, and as we began running linux on more of it's hardware, we found that a lot of the crashes we attributed to "that darned Microsoft" were actually problems with the hardware.
Never liked 98 much, especially it's habit of reconfiguring the hardware on each boot - much like mistakes being made today with user-space dynamic hardware configuration.
My NT4 server has run for years without problems, but a failing hard disk has finally prodded me to run something new. With NT, the key to stability was System Admins who actually knew what they were doing. Plenty of paper MSCE's should never been allowed near a keyboard.