[rescue] Sun Kit Needed for EE Student Here

[Sandwich Maker]

" From: "Bryan Gurney" <arb_npx42 at comcast.net>
" 
" 
" 
" I jumped on Win2K when it was released in February 2000, and it was a
" great move overall, from the standpoint of games and productivity.
" There was a slight speed hit in gaming compared to Win95 (I didn't
" even use 98), and initial driver and consumer program support was
" spotty, but it was well worth it to have the superior (to 9x) process
" management and stability of NT, along with the boon of native DirectX
" support.  No more dealing with VXD's, blue screens appearing when the
" system wanted a floppy disk or CD-ROM inserted in the system, task
" manager with no way to find out which process is the CPU/memory hog,
" etc.  Plus your average Win2K install had a much longer shelf life
" than a Win98 SE install (I remember hearing about friends reinstalling
" after 3 months because things became so sluggish in general, versus my
" Win2K system which only saw a reinstall on a major component change
" like transitioning off of an aging hard disk,
" motherboard-CPU-RAM-videocard upgrades, etc.).

plus, for us diehard unix geeks, there's sfu 3.5...

where in all of this would you-all rate os/2?  remember, the better
dos than dos, the better windows than windows?  i've heard stories of
all the 'fixing-up' ibm programmers did to the ms code; it wouldn't
surprise me if os/2 ran faster and more reliably than w98, but can it
run all the same programs?  and it doesn't apparently support as many
systems, for instance my hp notebook.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh at an.bradford.ma.us                       and think what none thought