>>I know that stability was the #1 priority for Win2K. I heard one of the Windows program managers state that under NT, the development team would turn off the computers at night .. it was never left running for long periods of time. That all changed in Win2K. In some cases compatability was sacrificed for stability.
>
>W2K is far and away the most stable OS Microsoft has released todate. I've been using it since Feb or Mar (?) and average no more than a crash a week. In an attemp to improve on that I installed SP2, but it seemed to make matters worse. Had Win95 the stability of W2K I probably wouldn't have moved to Linux. IMO, though, Win3.11 for Workgroups was as stable, if not more so, than W2K.
>JLK

Jerry;

My experience with Windows 3.11 and VFP 3.0 was a crash averaging every six minutes. That prompted me to have the client move to win 95 (July 1995) and allowed me to complete the project without going insane. Each newer OS has had real improvements measureable in a number of ways. Combine that with the improvements in the tools we use and live is good.

Tom