Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (
More info?)
One of the most difficult problems in "personal computing" is deciding whom
to believe, ... before you know enough not to have to ask.
I can't make that decision --- you have to.
But Messers. Denny and Harper, and myself, wish you the best and are giving
you our best advice.
OTH, PC World, or any other for-profit mag, is not going to spill much ink
telling you that XP SP2 is just great, and that you will not have issues
with it if you keep the critical updates installed, and do your usual
maintenance. They need to sell you bundles of pages of problem-fixes,
right, issue after issue?
I am quite confident that you will be pleased, if not outright surprised, at
how well XP runs. And no 16-bit system resources bottleneck, as in all
Win9X. I predict you will not look back!
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you:
http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Bart" <bfisher@ndsupernet.com> wrote in message
news:10utt635at7li36@corp.supernews.com...
> OK, so what all of you have told me makes perfect sense and I really want
to
> at least keep up with current technology, but today and I think even maybe
> yesterday I read a newsletter from PCWorld and when they talk about the
> nightmares, cautions about SP2, problems, workarounds, etc, etc leaves me
> thinking that who needs the hassle when all I want to do is successfully
> launch some programs and save the data reliably. Maybe Jan's advice is
the
> most applicable and go easy, learn and have no grand expectations.
Thanks,
> folks, for all the replies!!
> A grateful,
> Bart
>
> "Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
> news:emjvJRc$EHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > First, if your hardware will support it, Windows XP is definitely where
> you want to be. Windows XP is based on the NT software kernel, which has
some
> > vast improvements over the 9x software kernel. For one thing, resource
> > memory pools are nearly inexhaustible, so you don't need to worry as
much
> > about the background program load. For another, most programs run in a
> > separate memory space, so when one program does crash it rarely impacts
> any other program. I could go on all day, but I won't.
> >
> > Second, there's no sense in waiting for Longhorn. It is still several
> years away, and no one can guarantee that it will be any less susceptible
to
> > "security breaches" than Windows XP is. And finally, if Windows XP is
> kept updated and you use common-sense security measures there's no reason
to
> fear that your XP will be breached any more than any other operating
system.
> >
> > --
> > Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
> > * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> > * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
> > * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> > * HELP us help YOU ...
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >
> >
> > "Bart" <bfisher@ndsupernet.com> wrote in message
> > news:10ur331ick40o4e@corp.supernews.com...
> > > This is probably a question I'll probably get hollered at in this
group,
> > > but, is it the right thing to do to upgrade from ME to XP? As long as
I
> > > keep things clean and streamlined with minimal programs running in the
> > > background, I get along fine with ME. I haven't had a crash since I
> gave
> > > up
> > > on NAV. XP people say that the OS is dumbed down which tells me
system
> > > resources are diverted to little amenities that I could live without,
> but
> > > that it also uses memory more efficiently. With SP2 and all the
> security
> > > breaches they talk about with XP, I wonder if I should just wait for
the
> > > next OS. What say you?
> >