🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <32F80B...@interlog.com>, Bob Symonds <sym...@interlog.com> wrote:
>John Hamilton wrote:
>
>> The only time I reboot is when I do an install or
>> configuration change that requires a reboot. Or to drop to DOS to
>> play games which are still too buggy to play well under Win95 (which
>> is NOT the fault of Win95).
>
> {snip}
>
>> but guys like you replied to should be careful not to
>> show how technically incompetent they are by saying Win95 is
>> unstable. ;-)
>
>Fact: A large number of programs which ALWAYS ran just fine under
>DOS and Windows 3.x do not run properly (or at all) under Win 95.
>Only you and Bill Gates could have the gall to claim that the problems 
>are the fault of poor application software design. (It couldn't possibly 
>have anything to do with the brand new complex operating system.) 
>
>Win 95 probably is pretty stable if your Daddy just bought you a system 
>loaded with software designed specifically for it - but if you have 
>thousands invested in DOS and Win 3.x software I'd avoid it until Bill
>and the boys clean it up a bit!
>
>Bob (a software designer)

Compared to the "out of memory" errors one gets with DOS and 3.1x, 95 is a 
blessing for the most part.  It helps if you are running version 4.00.950a or 
4.00.950b, but even the initial release isn't half as prone to random lockups 
as 3.1x.  A multiboot is the best of both worlds as far as the current 
games go anyway.  I'm not a Microsoft fan, but to each his own.  If everyone 
wants to spend their time expressing opinions about OS's, go to a newsgroup 
that is intended for that purpose.  I'm probably just fanning the flames 
myself though.

Dave (A support tech that has to spend all day dealing with users that screw 
things up on their own, including software designers.)