May I reiterate the fact that 98 is not perfect. I'm also not saying people who are using 95 and are perfectly happy should rush out and buy 98. I'm just saying there's no point in getting 95 now. It's like saying the latest revision of the Scenixs have bugs that are only just coming out so you should just get the old version where more of the bugs are known. Great idea in theory, but how are they going to fix the bugs in the new version if no one uses it. Also, remember 95 will be killed off soon by M$. Win 3.1 now costs twice as much as Win 95 to stop people buying it. Won't be long before 95 goes off the market too. Oh yeah, and your not buying the original 95 anymore, it's OSR2 always with USB support and half the stuff they had to release a whole new version (98) to get too work, so don't know it'll be that much better. I use 98 at home myself, but only for games and serial port. I will be moving to NT ASAP cause it's way ahead. Not many people are going to be living very long if only those who can advance without problems survive. I don't think there would be many computer companies around if they stopped making products cause of bugs. And just to avoid confusion, you are correct that 9x is a long way from bug free (and it will stay that way), but I pay that price for the features that go with it. BTW: The power control issue would have been the switch over from the old to the new power management standards. Laptops are often problematic (had more problems in 95 but that's just cause I'm mostly experienced with 95 and laptops), it's cause they are too proprietary. You really need an OEM version OS from laptop maker or it's real bad. Very annoying. Had real bad problems as only accessible OEM copy was on dead laptop harddisk as they don't give CD's. Yep, laptops will often give you problems. Same deal with Linux, I've heard of a total of one person running Linux of a laptop and they were pretty happy with themselves at that. Tom. ----- Original Message ----- From: Wagner Lipnharski To: Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [OT] WIN95 > Thomas Brandon wrote: > > Sorry for the long OT I just get frustrated by the number of people out > > there with misconceptions such as this. Oh, and I'm not trying to have a go > > at those who have these misconceptions, more those who spread them (and I'm > > not referring to Andy here, I'm referring to the magazines and web pages). > > > > Tom. > > Thomas, your explaination about the versions was nice, and I thank you > for that. Tomorrow morning I will try to explain to one of our pentium > (Intel 233MHz) computers (2GB, 64MB) what misconception is, so then I > guess, Win98 will finally complete installation. I also guess that > computer already understand misconception related to WIn95, because it > install easy and fast. I don't know about other world reality, my > reality surrounds me, and at my reality arena Win98 doesn't work, and it > is not because what a magazine says. I have a friend that says; "A > person who doesn't need to use eye glasses can't understand how > difficult is the world to who needs it. Perhaps my computers have > something that is not compatible with WIn98, but the quality of the > water I taste (and drink) at my home's faucets, not at my neighbor's. > Toshiba needed to upgrade its notebooks power control software to be > compatible to Win98, ok, it just took me hours to find out why after > install a win98 at my notebook it is just went crazy and powered off > constantly, and few days more to Toshiba release the patch, but that's > ok, just another issue for misconception. You should be correct when > you say that Win98 was done to be a win95 super-patched and fixed, but > then they included a few other little things, and that is the real > problem, isn't? > > Long live to who fix problems, without creating new ones! > > Wagner