After takin' a swig o' grog, <CountFloyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:10:54 UTC, Chris Ahlstrom
> <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Rex Ballard belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>> > Microsoft likes to quickly bury their failures. Windows NT 3.x and
>> > Windows ME were also failures, and Microsoft went to some
>> > extraordinary efforts to move people off the legacy product. Windows
>> > NT 3.x machines were easily converted to Windows 95 machines, and
>> > Microsotf tried hard to encourage businesses to use Windows 95 instead
>> > of NT 3.1 OR Windows 3.1
>>
>> I don't know about that, but they did bring out a 95'ish desktop look for
>> Win NT 4.
> I actually have Windows NT 3.51 and WfWG 3.11 running quite well on
> old IBM PS/2 machines, with 486 processors. I feel that these were
> the last "good" windows that actually ran well before the Windows 95
> craze.
Well, Windows does have some sweet spots... the exact location varies from
release to release, though, and sometimes depends on the vendor's hardware.
--
There is no character, howsoever good and fine, but it can be destroyed by
ridicule, howsoever poor and witless.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
|
|
