Subject:
|
Re: Vision Command
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 May 2003 16:18:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1525 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> 98SE least buggy? Yeah right.
In my experience, yes, it is.
> I use XP and it blows the pants of Windows 9X/ME when it comes to stability
> and bugginess and etc.
All I can say is that I've had 98SE running for over two years without
a reinstall on my home machine (which gets used quite heavily), and it's
only recently been showing any problems (which I can attribute to the fact
that I managed to bump into a virus that none of the AV software companies
had found out about at that time). Two of the computers at work, however,
were running ME, and they would regularly (as in 2-3 times each week) run
out of enough memory to _shut_down_. The decision was made to upgrade to XP
on those machines, but then it was discovered that, even though they were at
most 2 years old, they couldn't handle the gigantomassive "minimum"
requirements that XP drags along as baggage. And even with mandatory
upgrades they still have problems that are worse than pretty much any of the
98SE machines in the office. I've also come across evidence that shows it
has some ridiculously stupid security flaws in the default setup, that were
_reintroduced_, even though all of the previous Windows OS systems had
defaulted them off. So, like I said, _in_my_experience_, 98SE is still the
least buggy. And until I personally see proof to the contrary, I will never
upgrade my OS. I'll reinstall it when I get a chance, but it'll be the same
as what I've got right now.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Vision Command
|
| (...) 98SE least buggy? Yeah right. I use XP and it blows the pants of Windows 9X/ME when it comes to stability and bugginess and etc. (21 years ago, 12-May-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
