Eh, at least it's Y2K compliant. :P (check your date settings!)

--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-

Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)

Ken Matassa <kma### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:12D### [at] pacbellnet...
> Ian Burgmyer wrote:
> >
> > Ken Matassa <kma### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
> > news:37E### [at] pacbellnet...
> > > (Not wanting to infect my system with later versions O
> > > Microsoft's bug ridden bloat ware, I have fortunatly missed the Win
> > > 95/98 experiance.)
> >
> > I'm still wondering how you can know that Windows 95/98 is bloatware and
a
> > piece of crap if you've never tried it on your own systems.  I've had
the
> > same views with it, ya know, running DOS and Win3.1, until I saw that it
ran
> > better on my system then it did on my dad's.
> >
> > Just for the note, I had a malfunctioning 486 DX2 80 (it was
accidentally
> > overclocked for over three years) and Windows 95 worked perfect, even in
> > turbo mode, and on a 486 DX4 100 (they are BOTH AMDs), it was working
O.K.,
> > but not perfect.
> >
> > --
> > This message brought to you by:
> > -=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-
> >
> > Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)
> I have experiance with both Win95 and Win98 at work, as well a slots of
> input from others who use one or the other, incuding both my dad and
> sister. (Just got back from visiting them over New Year's in nother
> Califonia.) My experiance has been tha Windows locks up if you look at
> it cross eyed. My system at home is a 486 DX-2 66 with 64 mg og ram. I
> am getting ready to put Linux on it.
>
> Ken Matassa

Post a reply to this message