On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Kent West wrote: > > opperating system is much slower and more "buggy". I have plenty of > > RAM and hd space for win 98 but like the idea of the smaller footprint > > of win95. Any thoughts? > > I prefer Win95 to 98, but that's just a personal preference.
I've found Win98 to be much more "stable" (if that's the right word) than Win95. YMMV. If you have the space, try NT4. A little more installation overhead, but more stable than the 9x's and more proven than 2K. There is of course the issue of application support, but if you're running only limited apps under Windows, that shouldn't be a problem. The biggest concern that I would have with a dual-boot system is that you won't be able to get insane uptimes. I had 168 days until a rolling blackout drained my UPS. (I hate California.) > > 2) I'm thinking of not installing a floppy drive. I have a rewritable > > cd drive and rarely use a floppy drive. I am thinking less wattage > > less heat, more open space in the case. Any thoughts? > > If you don't ever use one, you don't need one. It won't save much > wattage/heat, but it will open up a drive bay for other purposes. Correct, the drive only draws noticeable power when in use. I don't know what else you'll use the 3.5" drive bay for though. A tape drive maybe? A floppy drive only costs about $15, and it's really nice to be able to make boot disks in case Windows or Linux get a little wonky on you. -B -- Brandon High [EMAIL PROTECTED] War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. AOL is the Internet.
