Re: CPO work properly on Win2K?

Ok, now for the big question....if it's so bad, can I reinstall win2k without
totally screwin' up my PC?

"Shaw, Dave" wrote:

> Jon,
>
> Almost as reliable, AND on a Pentium II 400 MHz with 128 MB it's almost as
> fast as OS/2 was on a 486/66 with 32 MB.  What's not to like about that?
> <grin>
>
> Dave Shaw
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Paris [mailto:Jon.Paris@Partner400.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 1:37 PM
> To: code400-l@midrange.com
> Subject: RE: CPO work properly on Win2K?
>
>  >> Yep, I heard it was a better memory manager. Is this not true? I'm a 400
> bigot, I don't know much about the PC OS world! ;-)
>
> The only thing I've heard from people using Me is that it stinks and (if
> this is possible) is even more unreliable than 98.  Many businesses that
> purchased PCs with it as a pre-load are scratch installing 98 or upgrading
> to WIn 2K even though it costs them.  It is very much a home PC/play games
> and MP3s release.  If you want something in the Windows line that even
> approximates a real OS then you need Win2K.
>
> I've been using it for 6+ months now for Code/400 and a whole bunch more and
> would never go back to any "home" flavor of Windows.  With Win 2K I have a
> PC that is almost as reliable as my OS/2 machine of 5 years ago!!
>
> Jon Paris
> Partner400
> _______________________________________________
> This is the CODE/400 Discussion & Support (CODE400-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: CODE400-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/code400-l
> or email: CODE400-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/code400-l.