In article <[log in to unmask]>, Gavin Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > In my experience Win2K is the most stable, fast, reliable desktop OS I've > ever seen, If the rest are versions of Windows or MacOS, I heartily agree, though NT 3.51 gives it a run for its money in stability because it had more drivers running outside the kernel. But Windows NT (Windows 2000) is inherently less stable than any server OS because it's stuck with the appalling Win32 subsystem and its cavalier disregard of separattion of responsibilities. Everything, applications, drivers, system and user programs, are installed and run in a flat common namespace ... it's like soup, everything ends up tasting of everything else. DLL Hell is only the tip of the iceberg... The only desktop OS I've seen that really did a good job of avoiding this problem was NeXTStep, where applications are installed in separate isolated directories. And since it was UNIX based the UNIX namespace was used for access to resources like shared libraries, so there was no chance of the equivalent of "DLL conflicts". Linux does stick executables in a common path, but libraries are all versioned and tagged, so most of those problems never come up. I've been trying to get my Win2000 system happy again after a tech removed the wrong DLLs to upgrade a software package... since Friday. I'm not happy with Windows 2000 right now. (did I call it a soup? I meant a swamp. A toxic swamp off Minimata bay...) -- `-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva. 'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything." -- [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: WWFD? * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, * * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *