> krw wrote:
> > In article <R-mdnbnx4NAlqgDanZ2dnUVZ_ovin...@comcast.com>,
> > lon.stow...@comcast.net says...
> >> krw wrote:
> >>> In article <fnj5f7$2q...@registered.motzarella.org>, plinnane3
> >>> @yahoo.com.invalid says...
> >>>> krw wrote:
> >>>>> In article <479cecd0.216152...@news.motzarella.org>, g...@mail.ru
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:54:25 +0000 (UTC), Maciej Katafiasz <mathr...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> tried to confuse everyone with this message:

> >>>>>>> Den Sun, 27 Jan 2008 04:42:40 -0800 skrev pg:

> >>>>>>>> The computers will be Windows 98SE based
> >>>>>>> Please don't. It's the worst possible OS to install for such a scenario.
> >>>>>>> It'll be unmaintainable for you, and (what's even worse) will teach the
> >>>>>>> kids that computers are inherently unreliable and not to be trusted.
> >>>>>> What a bunch of FUD. Win98 is easily the best OS Microsoft has ever created. Too
> >>>>>> bad they don't support it anymore.
> >>>>> Troll.

> >>>> depends on your POV; win98se does have alot of supporters.  I (continue
> >>>> to) use XP because it hasn't crashed since I installed it; if it wasn't
> >>>> for that I'd probably still be using win98se or winme; *much* lighter,
> >>>> more user-comprehensible, full command line; get infected and just
> >>>> reinstall in a couple minutes.
> >>> All Win9x variants are a pile of shite.  I've been having a lot of
> >>> trouble with XP lately too.  In the five or six years I used Win2K I
> >>> never had any problems that I could pin on M$.  Win2K was by far the
> >>> most stable Windows.  (let's just forget Vista ever happened)

> >> Most trouble with XP is user injected.

> > In this case, I'm quite sure it's device driver injected.  I have
> > the damned thing working again (reboot-reinstall) but it still can't
> > rememberer screen modes across power mode changes worth a damn.  
> > Suspend is useless.

> Ow, I dont remember having that kind of issue even with Win/95a--which
> wasnt a model of stability.