>From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" (Brin-L) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: More Irregulars Questions >Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 08:52:52 +0200 > >You are right about NT being more stable and efficient. Only problem with >NT >is that a lot of games (including most of the games I like to play) refuse >to run on a NT system. :-( > >(Which is why my private laptop is dual boot Win98 and NT). > > >Jeroen "so many games, so little time" van Baardwijk
I've found WinXP to be very stable. Civ 3 gave my computer fits when I installed it a few months ago on my win2k machine. (The machine never crashed, but the game wouldn't play properly. Now I'm playing it (albeit infrequently) on the same machine running win xp with no problem. Half Life is another game which ran strangely under win2k. Every once in a while the game would lose track of the CD and ask incessently for it to be inserted into the drive. I'd have to alt-tab, and use Explorer to eject and close the drive bay, then alt-tab back to the game, where it would function normally. But, neither OS really ever crashed, even with heavy multitasking of multiple large applications. Heck, if Photoshop, Quark, AOL, Opera, Forte Agent, Quicktime Player AND MSWord couldn't crash the machine when they all tried to access the hard drive(s) at once, then I think nothing could. :-) Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
