On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 some message from Bernie appeared before me saying,
>All the above is correct. But you have forgotten to mention "Windows
>Millenium". This is the latest beta in the Windows 94 series (95, 98 and
>now Millenium). This one is not based on OS/2 (as NT is) and can run DOS
>programs AFAIK just as good (or IMO bad) as Windows 9x.
Jups i forgot about it. Dumped it into my first reply on the first reply
on my original reply. Gosh, all these replies everywhere getting me
confused ;)
>2000 isn't meant for home users (except if you want less crashes),
>Millenium is made for users that want more features, bugs and crashes and
>the ability to run most (probably not all since 98 couldn't run all the
>things that ran i 95) of the programs that run in 9x.
It's more for the office use.. It's a little bit more stable as the memory
management is a little bit better. But why are we discussing windows over
here, i thought this was a mailinglist about Arachne *grin*
--
Cliff Albert | IRCNet: #wan99, #linux.nl, #ne2000, #cafeetje
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | UnderNet: #groningen ICQ: 18461740
