Kenneth Burns wrote:The Windows NT jibe strikes me as unfair. NT was always much stabler than Windows 3.1/95 etc.
yes i agree completely...windows nt 4 and 5.0 -- aka windows 2000 -- are definitely good to excellent operating systems and at least an order of magnitude more stable than windows 95, and i think the effort made to merge the ms-dos/win 95 and windows nt streams of operating systems was ill-advised, as well as taking out some of the windows nt components as they went forward like a coke-fuelled game of strip poker.
windows nt 3.51 has proven superior to windows 98 in many respects and about equal to os/2
the nt 4 server/2000 server/linux machine on which i type this has only displayed the windows nt version of the blue screen of death once, and that was the result of a faulty iomega zip drive, i imagine also a rare event for what i've found to be an otherwise bulletproof line of products.