From: Rob Bell (RobDBell_at_netscape.net)
Date: Fri Apr 12 2002 - 07:19:27 EDT
No, not terribly sheltered. I guess everyone has different experiences,
but I don't believe I'm in the minority in my assessment of Win2K.
Which OS do you find works better on these systems that are giving Win2K
such troubles in your experience?
Rob
stevec50_at_yahoo.com wrote:
> No it actually does. You must lead a sheltered life.
> I see instances or it crashing every few days. Usually
> for no known reason after it's been running a while.
> I would never venture to call it stable under any
> circustances. You can make it crash just by doing the
> "critical" updates even if it's been running well up
> to that point. To add insult to injury there is no way
> to recover it, none of the so called "repair" options
> ever work!
>
>
>>To say that Windows 2000 crashes frequently is
>>simply inaccurate. I've
>>been using Win2000 since early betas in many
>>different
>>laptop/desktop/server environments and have
>>consulted for many companies
>>that have deployed Win2000. This is probably the
>>most stable and
>>well-constructed OS that Microsoft has ever built.
>>It has a reputation
>>for stability. If Win2000 is experiencing crashes
>>on a particular
>>system you can be sure that there is an unusual
>>hardware or driver
>>problem causing it. You may have personally
>>experienced hardware
>>issues, but to call them frequent when referring to
>>the Win2000
>>installed base as a whole is not accurate.
>>
>>No, I don't work for MS, nor do I really like them
>>much, but Windows
>>2000 is a stable product that seemed like it was
>>getting unfairly jabbed
>>here.
>>
>>Rob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:58:39 EST