Mark Lloyd wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:19:29 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:36:44 -0400, Eugene Nine wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:59:01 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:23:39 GMT, Norminn
wrote:

long gone. The pile of junk with WinME barely gets the news and
emails, and can't remember what time it is or where it put it's hard
drive. Come to think of it, it is a lot like me )

Windows ME was released with some 65, 000 "known bugs" as I have read.
Keep in mind when they try to fix one bug, the potential is there to
introduce additional bugs.

For my money Windows 2000 is as stable as it gets.

Oren

I've been using 2000 for over a year now, and VERY SELDOM have to
reboot the system because of a misbehaving program.

Yes, 2000 was the best, XP was a big disappointment after running NT4 and
2000 for a few years.

It IS, not was the best, stable version. The pro version will give a
home user years of stable use, for the moment.

For the same years as the OP, say 6 years 2000 stood up, took anything
I sent to it.

XP really centered on a "power user", at least in pro. Pro opens all
the network, dangerous from start up.

This WindoZe environment, we speak about has left (b)millions open to
attack right out of the box.


Once I remember hearing that the average time-until-attack (for a
system running Windows with default settings) was about 5 minutes.
It's probably less now. It can help to have any Windows updates,
device drivers, and a good firewall on a CD, so you can get it
protected BEFORE getting on the internet.

Uh, what difference do the settings make to "time until attack"? For that
matter, what difference does the OS make? So someone attacks. So what?
What is the time until the attack _succeeds_? That is what matters.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)