...
...
Really? Im using Win98 and I love it compared to clunky ole 95. On the
whole, there
is no slowdown in performance for me. (PII-266, 64MB edo) I am using fat32
on my drives
which, while making scandisk disk defraggers a little slower, it also saves
me hundreds of MB.
OSR2, which I also had, would regularly bluescreen with a FAT error due to
the fact that its
emulation for the support of fat32 drives is far from perfect.
Windows explorer takes no more time than it did in 95.
...
Its time we face up to the fact that 16-bit DOS games will be phased out for
the release of
the 64-bit OS sometime shortly after the year 2000. WinNT has already
forgone the compatibility with
16-bit programs in the name of stability. If you dont like it, sorry, but
thats whats coming in the industry.
before.
I find that my box is more stable than it was under OSR2. Whereas I used to
have a daily reboot, (i use my
computer A LOT, and leave it running all the time) I now only find myself
with a hard crash about once per week. Explorer errors, which were a
seemingly hourly occurance under OSR2 (well, OK, daily) now only occur on
average 2-3 times per week.
Im not putting in the big pitch for MS here. I does crash occasionally, as
i stated, lacking the stability of NT or linux, but all in all its a BIG
STEP UP from windows 95
Rob