FUD

[DCT Jared]

>"magnificently stable"?!?  That's rich.

actually, the original reference was qualified: "for its day"

>> Windows 95 was magnificently stable and reliable for it's day.

>My favorite Win95 story comes from when I was building systems for a
>payroll project I was on.  One time we had 11 identical HP systems that we
>were building, and the only thing on them that required a custom driver was
>the video card.  We set them all up in a row and clicked the same buttons
>on down the line during the setup to set them all up identically.  3 worked
>the way that they were supposed to by the time we were done loading
>Windows, and the remaining 8 all had one problem or another that required
>either reconfiguration or reloading to bring them up to spec.
>
>- Kevin

It is clear that the software was identical, so therefore your 11 "identical" HP
systems were not so identical after all. The problem was not so much
Microsoft as you may be thinking.

The original point Jonathan was making was that we don't need to sit around 
and bash Microsoft all day long; to give them credit where credit was due, and
I happen to agree with that point. If we're going to profess to be better than
Microsoft, then why spend so much time on FUD against them?

-Jared

"The spirit of advogato has always tended towards making positive statements 
by NOT making negative statements." - lkcl 
(http://www.advogato.org/article/738.html)