Re: Windows98 compared to Windows95

Subject: Re: Windows98 compared to Windows95
From: JK Wilson <JKWilson -at- CONCENTRIC -dot- NET>
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 09:10:03 -0400

>From: Parker, Cassandra M. (EXCH) <CMPARKER -at- INTERMEDIA -dot- COM>
>
> I have an opportunity to upgrade my home computer from Windows95 to
> Windows98 but I'm a little leery because I've heard there are quite a few
> "bugs" in Windows 98. I would like to hear your opinions about the
>upgrade.
> Is it worth it with the new Windows 2000 coming out soon? What type of
>bugs
> have you encountered? Many times I take the office work home.

Not to add fuel to the admin's fire, but there is one point regarding this
issue that affects our productivity as writers (and since I've seen several
messages regarding the ridiculous time-wasting slow systems cause, etc). If
you have anything above a P200 or lots of memory, upgrade. Win 95 doesn't
take advantage of anything over 64 meg of RAM (actually I've heard people
complain that more memory slowed it down), and was not designed to keep up
with processors over 266 MHz (and that's OSR2/Win95B--the original 95 was
maxed at 200). Yo make a long story short, you don't want your software
limiting the ability of your hardware. Win98 is basically Win95 with a
gazillion bug fixes, better hardware support, and some nice tools like Disk
Cleanup, an onboard FAT-32 converter, and a defragger that puts the apps
you open most often first for faster loading.

JK Wilson
Creative Director
The Park Century Group, Ltd.


From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=



Previous by Author: Re: "Navigate" or "explore"?
Next by Author: Advice Requested: "What part of this is yours?"
Previous by Thread: Re: Windows98 compared to Windows95
Next by Thread: A couple of miscellaneous questions about online help


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads