Our PC gurus report that '2000 merely gives BSOD "less often" than either
'95 or even NT.

We had this discussion yesterday, using MPE is the prime example of a
reliable OS.

-dtd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Phillips [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 10:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: OT: Microsoft Windows 2000 Advertising
>
>
> Only Microsoft could/would have the audacity to do something
> like this:
>
> On pages 2 and 3 of the December 11th InfoWorld magazine
> Microsoft has an ad
> for Windows 2000 Professional, touting its reliability (13 times more
> reliable than Windows 98).  Prominently featured in the ad is
> a Windows 95
> BSOD.  Now forgetting for the moment the implication that
> Windows 2000 is a
> follow-on for Windows 9x, which it is not, only Microsoft
> would have the
> chutzpah to use a BSOD for marketing purposes.
>
> Now, let's see:  "We know our operating systems have had reliability
> problems in the past, but ignoring that, we want you to buy our new
> operating system.  It is 13 times more reliable than before.
> Oh, but sorry,
> there is no upgade path from the other OS."
>
> Interesting.
>
> Now, can someone explain what "13 times more reliable than Windows 98"
> really means?  If Windows 98 crashed 100 times, then I can
> expect Windows
> 2000 to crash 1/13th of that (or 7.7 times)?
>
> Jim Phillips                           Information Systems Manager
> Email: [log in to unmask]     Therm-O-Link, Inc.
> Phone: 330-527-2124                    P. O. Box 285
> Fax:   330-527-2123                    10513 Freedom Street
> Web:   http://www.tolwire.com          Garrettsville, OH  44231
>