Hi Pete,I think I'm going to start calling you "multiple Dowson" (with apologies to multiple Miggs (or was it Meigs?) in Silence of the Lambs) for your repeated postings of the same message
Anyway, enough of that - on to important things...
<<I think we're at cross-purposes here. I was referring to your comment about Win9x (or was it Me?) giving you lots of "out of memory" errors, whereas XP doesn't, so I was explaining that most all those sorts of errors on 9x (and Me) were down to tabulated resource handle space. >>
You're probably right about cross-purposes. Tabulated resource handle space? Blimey, I'm lost! I'll accept that you know what you're talking about and leave it at that.
<<But we weren't talking about tools, but O/S reliability and efficiency if you recall.>>
Yes, I remember - just! I stick with my original opinion about stability despite all that's been said. As for efficiency I imagine you're probably right in that XP is excessively bloated to ensure reliability but I'd rather have a few hundred mg of space consumed if it means a more stable system.
If I didn't make it clear about NT4 and FS2002 I meant to. I agree it isn't a suitable platform to run FS on.
<<And anyway, I would stick up for OS/2 above NT any day! >>
You're moving the goalposts! The original question was Win98 vs XP.
<<Really it was a parallel to the Betamax vs VHS battle, and the better one lost. Ah well ...>>
Same with BSB vs Sky! Such is life!
Regards,
Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England