I have to agree with mordell, my experience with Win98 SE has been much more stable than my experience with Win95. I also have no trouble installing the "big guys". Maybe you guys should defrag and scan disk more often?

I have to agree with the last 2 posts. I run visual studio and all of those big boys, on a very wimpy machine. And it all seems to run very stable on my 200mhz bastard box.

The only thing that has happened to me in Win98 is the words would get blurry and unreadable. That has happened about 10 times.

Win95 crashed WAY more than Win98. It would always come up with the blue screen and say "Press any key to continue," then I would, and everything was black!

I don''t know why your computers are crashing.

See ya...

Win98 allowed me to install all my drivers. Win95 would blue screen a /lot/, not recognise hardware, and generally get confused, during installation.

10 minutes as opposed to over an hour and a half, and the end result a (reasonably, barring IE5) stable system.

Then I installed Win2K. I couldn''t help but be impressed. Not even IE5 has managed to kill it yet, after several weeks.

One minor point of concern is that the supposed improved hardware setup in Win2K decides that /all/ my PCI devices appreciate being stuck on IRQ 9. GeForce DDR, TV card (audio and video components), SBLive!, network, and anything else I have (we''re talking, like, 8-10 devices, all on the same IRQ).

Strange thing is, nothing complains. Ever. No conflicts reported, no crashes, and plenty of speed. Although this might explain why I can''t install the GeForce 5.13 Detonator leaked beta properly. Bah.

TheTwistedOne
http://www.angrycake.com

I haven''t been able to confirm this myself, but it seems like Windows 2000 is a very stable OS, especially for running what mordell called the "big guys" applications and developing software, since it''s got a lot of NT4 code in it. But developing games (especially in NT4) is not a good idea, since NT4 only supports up to DirectX 3, but Win2000 should be fine.

I''m even more intrested in getting a system that doesn''t need rebooting than most people, since my CPU won''t restart unless it''s cooler than 34 degrees Celcius (about 90 F I think) due to some motherboard error. (No, it''s not overclocked)

Side note: I heard a few months ago about the MacOSx system that was under development at that time, and the development team said that MacOSx couldn''t be crashed. Really? Any Mac people here that can tell us more?

============================
Daniel Netz, Sentinel Design
"I'm not stupid, I'm from Sweden" - Unknown