Thus it was written in the epistle of Chuck Ryan,
> > 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)?
>
> I'm sorry but... did you just bash MS for ADDING stability to their product?

I don't think he did.  Looks to me like he wondered what "13 times more
reliable" means.  Is it like "twice as cold" as in "It's freezing (0C/32F)
outside at the moment and it'll be twice as cold by midnight"?

Ted

P.S.  I'm willing to note, however, that "our new product isn't quite so
miserable as our previous product" isn't a particularly strong selling point.
If there was any M$ bashing, I think it had to do with the audacity of using
a BSOD for advertising (reminds me of
http://www3.50megs.com/djharter/Digests/H9906160.htm#Joke3) and of making the
implicit claim that Win2K is a followon to 95/98.
--
Ted Ashton ([log in to unmask]), Info Sys, Southern Adventist University
          ==========================================================
I mean the word proof not in the sense of the lawyers, who set two half
proofs equal to a whole one, but in the sense of a mathematician, where half
proof = 0, and it is demanded for proof that every doubt becomes impossible.
                                           -- Gauss, Karl Friedrich (1777-1855)
          ==========================================================
         Deep thoughts to be found at http://www.southern.edu/~ashted