Arno Wagner wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <5gu5c7F3i427kU1@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner says...
>>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In article <5gtu53F30ebl3U1@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner says...
>>>
>>>>> The right Linux distro (e.g. Ubuntu) is much more viable today
>>>>> than everything MS offers.
>>>
>>>> It isn't. Shall we start with Wifi?
>>>
>>>>> True, there is a bit of a learning
>>>>> curve, but there is with Vista (e.g.) as well. And unlike Windows,
>>>>> what you learn with Linux stays valid for decades. No need to
>>>>> re-learn everything every few years.
>>>>>
>>>> No need to relearn everything with Windows. Windows didn't become what
>>>> it is today by making massive changes.
>>>
>>> Well, as long as you stay on the surface. true. As soon as you
>>> have a problem or want a bit more, not true anymore.
>>>
>> Vista is the first change for a long time but a lot of what there is
>> underneath can be recognised as being in XP. Likewise XP is basically
>> Win2k.
>
>> Win95 was a significant change and Win2k was. Aside from those two
>> OSes, everything else is much of a muchness just with different icons.
>
> Havin upgraded from 98 to ME a long time ago, I can say that this is
> untrue. ME was basically an improved 98. Or supposed to be. However
> they changed enough, that troubleshooting became impossible. I have
> been using Linux since 1994 and never had this kind of issue.

Win98se and ME where peas from the same pod, the differences where more
subtle then anything else, the removal of dos (to the user), the
implementation of system restore, the vastly improved driver database, the
extremely unstable implementation of active desktop and the irritating
incompatibilities.

When repairing an ME system, to a 98se system the differences are trivial.

Gaz




> Arno