>I hate to say this, but the IE 4 release is almost like a new OS altogether and I
>can highly recommend a reinstall of the system :-}. IE 4 worked fine on my existing
>setup, but after I decided to go through my annual reinstall of NT to clean up
>the system, everything ran so much faster that I'm thinking this should be
>done more often than once a year...
>
>Then again, IE4 worked fine for me on all of my machines (all NT boxes) from the
>first preview on. Win95 seems to have caused a lot more problems than NT for a change.
>
>In my current setup IE4 is by far the most stable browser I've run on my
>system - it has not crashed once since I reinstalled from scratch (a week ago).
>
>+++ Rick ---


Like I said, I hear from some people it runs great, some say it has great suction. When a problem does occur it is compounded by the Complexities of the Registry. Especially since IE4 does a number on the Registry when it is installed. It is a shame it takes a re-install of NT to make it work well. I guess there is not real 3rd party market for NT Registry Util programs like there is in 95.

It was weird, IE4 PP1 ran great for me but a buddy had problems. When IE4 PP2 came out I had nothing but problems (NT & 95) and my buddies system got better. Too weird.

The final version of IE4 runs much better and has fixed most problems caused by PP2. I just think MS should of had a much more stable release before they made it public (yeah, I know what the disclaimor said but I beg to differ by the way they promoted the Betas).

My mind is made up. MS is getting too desperate for marketshare and releases Betas to the general public way too soon. I, for the most part, will not load MS Betas anymore. They are causing problems that are not easy to fix. Plus as the systems get more complex they are taking a much bugger toll. I can't handle the down time.

Tom