On 21 Jun 2002, at 10:06, Jari Williamsson wrote: > David W. Fenton writes: > > > I really do like Win2K, so I'll be happy to use it all the time, but > > people who badmouth Win95 really don't know what they are talking about. > > * Compiling big projects on Borland C++ Builder can easily freeze and > crash the whole Win95. Performing the compile on the same machine but > under Win2000 (or NT or XP), will work just fine. It's not just me that > experience this.
Well, people who program are exceptions, as the whole process is fraught with the kinds of problems that most people don't experience. Programming puts a whole set of demands on a computer and OS that are well beyond the normal range of operating conditions. That is not to say that more stable OS's are not better, just that criticizing the older OS for being less stable than newer ones is really beside the point. But the older OS can be more than adequate for a number of uses. > * When editing large files in Photoshop, Win95 just stops responding for > minutes when swapping memory. Doing the same thing on Win2000 on > the same machine will cause no problems, of course it will still swap but > it's done in the background. I don't really understand the whole point of your responding with criticisms of Win95. I did not deny that the newer OS's were better, but I categorically dispute that Win95 is wholly unsuitable for general daily use, which is what your response to the original post implied. On the older computers on which it is going to be found, it is perfectly adequate. And no one who is doing either of the tasks you describe on a regular basis is going to be using an older computer in the first place. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
