On 13 Mar 2002 at 15:54, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > +++ Shridhar Daithankar [linux-india] <13/03/02 12:55 +0530>: > > On 13 Mar 2002 at 10:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Or why not just use nt bootloader? Is there a problem? > > It sucks bad for few reasons. > > 1)It resides on a partition rather than partition boot sector making it > > live at > fair enough - but NT - and bootloader - are not all that bad compared to 9x. > I've seen patched nt server / workstation installs which ARE quite stable.
I agree. NT is not bad as an OS. I just had one BSOD in one and half years across three machines and that was due to reflection X. But problem is with major policy decisions. Registry, shoving COM down the throat of everything etc. I have used NT4, W2K and XP with all updates. It's actually stable. But so what? My home linux workstation had been better except for a unclean CD drive few times. Stability of windows may be a news these days. But it can not be a selling point. Performance and resource hogs are still way beyond being realistic.. I think I am diverting from topic..;-) Shridhar _______________________________________________ linux-india-help mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-india-help
