Just hazarding a guess, but in a Universe where the Business Law is "Fast, Cheap, and Good; pick any two", the answer is clear.

Windows 2000 is no cheaper than Windows 98 and it is "better" by Microsoft's Fiat.

So we can only conclude that it is Good and Slow.

___________________________________________
Jim Phillips wrote:

>>> Jim Phillips <[log in to unmask]> 12/13 9:56 AM >>>
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