These were orginally posted in thread titled "Andrew's jokes thread" and I moved them here on Andrew's advice.

Q: Why does Bill Gates prefer Windows NT over his wife?

A: It goes down more than she does.

Actually NT, esp. NT2000, is infinitely more stable than 98, se, or ME ever were. My computer's been running for a good 2 months and hasn't crashed anything with it.

Paolo,

2 whole months without a crash? Keep this up and you will become eligible for a safe driver's award.

LOL

Actually NT, esp. NT2000, is infinitely more stable than 98, se, or ME ever were. My computer's been running for a good 2 months and hasn't crashed anything with it.

Right you are, Paolo. Of course, NT/2000 is so stable precisely because Microsoft didn't write them! NT was originally a Digital product, and remained so through Win2K. I'm avoiding XP because that's one where MS took the lead again.

I've had NT operating continuously, without a crash or even a hiccup, for as long as 6 months at a time.

Right you are, Paolo. Of course, NT/2000 is so stable precisely because Microsoft didn't write them! NT was originally a Digital product, and remained so through Win2K. I'm avoiding XP because that's one where MS took the lead again.

I've had NT operating continuously, without a crash or even a hiccup, for as long as 6 months at a time.

Well I have been running Windows XP Pro since the end of June on my new system with very little problems.

Actually it seems more stable than my old Windows 2000 machine.

Windows XP is not as backward compatible as previous versions of windows. Many Win 3.1 and 95 applications may not install or work on XP. Many 3.1 and 95 drivers will not work on XP. Also, XP does not have drivers for many older hardware items and the manufacturers may not provide the updated drivers.

When I upgraded my old Win 98 1st machine it took a long time sort out all of the problems and to configure many of the applications to run on it. My newer XP compatible machine had fewer problems.

Overall, I am satisfied with XP.

Transferred from Andrew's Joke Thread

Sorry Andrew,

luvpain (imported) wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2002 8:47 am Windows XP is not as backward compatible as previous versions of windows. Many Win 3.1 and 95 applications may not install or work on XP. Many 3.1 and 95 drivers will not work on XP. Also, XP does not have drivers for many older hardware items and the manufacturers may not provide the updated drivers.

When I upgraded my old Win 98 1st machine it took a long time sort out all of the problems and to configure many of the applications to run on it. My newer XP compatible machine had fewer problems.

Overall, I am satisfied with XP.

luvpain (imported) wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2002 8:47 am Windows XP is not as backward compatible as previous versions of windows. Many Win 3.1 and 95 applications may not install or work on XP. Many 3.1 and 95 drivers will not work on XP. Also, XP does not have drivers for many older hardware items and the manufacturers may not provide the updated drivers.

When I upgraded my old Win 98 1st machine it took a long time sort out all of the problems and to configure many of the applications to run on it. My newer XP compatible machine had fewer problems.

Overall, I am satisfied with XP.

That could be said about almost any version of windows. I know a lot of old hardware was only designed to run under windows 3.1 & Windows 95. UMAX was famous for making cheap scanners, but were too lazy to update the drivers for anything past 95. If you were lucky you could get it to work in windows 98.

You also need to remember that any of the operating systems Micro$oft releases are really designed to run on newer systems not a 3 year old or older machine.

So far everything I have works OK in XP Pro. I did have to go out and get a new video card as Matrox had stopped supporting the Marvel G400 card I had. I did that way before I got the new machine as I was having problems using it to capure video in Windows 2000.