>>I did notice,however, that this article did something that even Microsoft had taken up. Remember when W2K was announced? Amazingly, Microsoft started targeting Win95 and Win98 as being unstable and a good reason to install W2K. But, prior to those ads you never heard any admission from Redmond that Win95 or Win98 were anything but stable. The only 'faint' praise I have been seeing was in reference to Win2000 not being as stable as XP.
>>
>>Orwellian NewSpeak, indeed.
>
>Ha ha... so damn true...
>
>I like this one best though when MS talks about .Net and how the now 'old' COM based architecture is now (mostly indirectly but a few times quite explictly from MS folks) written off as not scalable and as having stability problems...
>
>+++ Rick ---

Ever wonder when they are going to roll their 'wc' clone into the kernel of their next upgrade of XP?