Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lubaolong
Me, too! I'm still using Windows for Workgroups 3.11
|
I see sarcasm here...
3.11 won't run my Word Processing Programs now, it won't run any of my games, and I am pretty sure it would have driver problems with the system I have. And as I understand it, the significant changes made in the 95 era were real improvements over 3.11 and a 3.11 box couldn't even handle the hardware I am running now, such as hard drive, RAM and even CPU speed. I am not against ALL change, just this unnecesary change at this time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 6FeetAbove
use windows 95' and i bet you one thousand dollars you wont have any problems.
|
That is a very bold statement. As I recall, 95 had some bad memory errors that caused a lot of crashes and lost data. I have used both operating systems, sometimes at the same time (different machines) and have worked with both when I worked with my father who is a IT specialist. XP is far far far more stable than 95 could ever hope to be. Also, the increased plug and play and driver support is a big help. I remember going to internet cafes last year and I could not use my USB drive at 3.11 machines or 95 machines because they needed me to instal drivers first because I could put in a simple flash drive.
I can remember my years using 95/98 and many many crashes. Switched to Wnidows 2000 and it was far more stable. Reluctantly switched to XP and it was just as stable as 2000 and had some small improvements.
I will say that maybe when hardware gets far enough beyond the software again, Vista will look nicer. But the demands it seems to be putting on the RAM, CPU and GPU are a bit much for me now, and still expect to run decent games and multiple programs and all that, especially if XP is doing exactly what I want how I want it now, and is rock solid stable.
