Win XP and repartitioning

[Fowler, Chris]

I've used every incarnate of Windows since 2.0 and find Win2000 to be the
most reliable and relatively fast. I'm running XP Pro right now and aside
from software incompatibility it's polished Win2k. It's looking very
suspiciously like an Apple OS. It tries very hard to keep itself running and
I have yet to see a BSOD (*looking for some wood*). All of that comes at a
price though. Compared to Win2k it's a bit sluggish so if you -have- to go
M$, 2k is your best bet.

9x kernel is and shall ever be- junk.

<whatajoke>
>What's wrong with 95 anyway?  It's stable, 
</whatajoke>

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hutchins [mailto:hutchins at opus1.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:31 PM
To: 'Brian Densmore'; 'kclug at kclug.org'
Subject: RE: Win XP and repartitioning

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Densmore [mailto:DensmoreB at ctbsonline.com]

> I would recommend ME over any other version of Win9x (it has all the
> patches, and is the most stable of the breed). Win2000 is the most
> stable Winblows version available. 

To be marginally polite, balderdash.

All of the bloat and none of the stability is what I read in every review
that isn't a glossed Press Release.  Absolute crap according to every
reliable reviewer out there.  Reeking horsedung according to every tech
who's had to install it.

What's wrong with 95 anyway?  It's stable, it works, you can patch it to run
most hardware.  Any of the "features" that the later versions offer can be
had with third-party freeware.  As modern GUIs go, it's light weight and
efficient.  Who could ask for anything more?