|
|
 | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | Re: Windows 2000
|
| (...) Millennium is just a new win9x with some additional bells and whistles and will not have any "revolutionary" new things. I doubt the difference between win98 and millennium will be more than the difference between win95 and win98. Of course (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Windows 2000
|
| In lugnet.cad, Ben Vaughan writes: snip [...] (...) Ben (& everyone) thanks for the pointers. I'll do a little more research as I have a week or so before I can borrow an external SCSI burner for the backup job. I think I'm leaning towards 2k (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Windows 2000
|
| On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 5:09:22 -0600, Rui Martins wrote (in message <Pine.GSU.4.10.10007...0@is-sv>): (...) Rui, Actually, NT and 2000 have much better memory management that 95/98. 95 and 98 will most likely only perform better on lower end machines (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Windows 2000
|
| (...) I'm aware that this is not a Linux newsgroup, but I just have to comment this, as I find it somewhat misleading. I'm setting followup-to lugnet.off-topic.geek, which is a more suitable newsgroup. I'm sure you could install Linux on a 128MB (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
|
