FUD

[Brian Densmore]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 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.
> 
Yes, qualified, but still laughable as FreeBSD was available then
and so was Linux. So it really doesn't qualify as magnificently stable.
I am of course only relating Win95 to other PC OSes, if we expand our
view, then Win95 fairs even worse.

> >My favorite Win95 story comes from when I was building systems for a
> ...
> 
> 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?
Agreed, I don't need to bash M$. But let us no fall into FUD
going in the other direction either. DOS/Windows was not as
bad as many make out nor were they as good as others. I know,
because I've had every version of Windows since version 1.01
(up to NT4 and Win98, and use at work up to XP).
They have served their purpose,
and now it's time to move on to better things.

Brian