Denys writes:
 
>All this to say that when I hear people complain about Windows 95 or NT and
>make sweeping statements that they are unstable or do not work or . . . I am
>just amazed! This has not been my experience.  Am I that good or charmed or
>are these folks that unlucky?  Well let us look at some numbers.
 
 
I have Windows 95, Windows NT Server 3.51, and Windows 3.11 (as well as Linux)
installed on various machines at home.  NT has never had any problems.  Regular
old Windows, of course, was written to the MicroSoft GPF standard.  'Nuff said.
95 freezes regularly (nearly daily), requiring a hard reset.  I have always felt
that this was due to having only 8MB memory; someday, I promise to get more and
test this theory.  So in this highly scientific and statistically valid
sampling, the order of stability is:
 
NT (tied with Linux)
95
Windows
 
It's actually kinda hard to choose between 95 and old windows, since old windows
doesn't actually freeze, individual applications just screw up.
 
-Bob
[log in to unmask]