Re: Off Topic: Re: Memory issues

["J. R. Fox" jr_fox@xxxxxxxxxx]

Patricia wrote:

>     As you see I'm still running 98;

O.K. My experience with 98 is sporadic and kind of limited. Obviously, you are
much better versed in the finer points of that one.

> I absolutely refuse to even consider XP
> (and EVERYONE says ME is a MEss). I'm starting to think about Y2K, since
> 98 is having problems with some of the newer hardware on my new system

This will be more and more of an issue as time goes on. Even near term. From what
I can see, W2K has most of what's best or most important (except the earlier Dosbox)

from 98 _and_ from XP, minus up to the minute bells & whistles or the intrusive
registration arrangements. However, like NT before it, it is vastly more complex
under
the hood than 98. It probably knows about or can handle nearly all the hardware you

are likely to run into, for the time being. But I'm sure MS will do its best to
render it
obsolete.

>     Actually, Configsafe was also packaged with some of IBM's desktops;

I suspect its value goes up a lot, for those using NT-4 or later. I've seen 98 take
much
more of a licking yet keep on ticking. When the later ones get hosed, you really
are in
trouble.


Jordan