Author Topic: Windows XP Myths (Read 70128 times)

Mastertech · « **Reply #50 on:** October 13, 2006, 01:41 PM »

I purchased notebooks with each of the o/s's mentioned above (98SE, ME, 2k, XP Pro and XP Home) preinstalled (and desktops with 98 and 98SE), all labelled with the "Designed for Win [version here]" label attached, at least a year after the OS was released. I would rank ME far below the others in terms of stability. Whether these were driver compatibiltiy issues or not is irrelevant. As an end-user (and not a system administrator/techie) ME was a nightmare. All I did was install Office 2k on my ME system (which came with ME preinstalled and all the drivers were ME certified from the OEM - Compaq) and use it for light word processing and e-mail/net surfing, and it blue screened a lot more often than 98. So much so that I was leary of newer windows versions and stuck with the 98SE machine before discovering that 2k was a quantum leap over both in terms of stability. I switched to Win2k late in 2001 and finally bought my first XP Pro machine in March 2004. I'd rank 2k slightly ahead of XP Pro/Home for stability and speed, with XP far ahead of 98/98SE and ME dead last with a comfortable gap separating it from 98. I still use the original 98 machine, which has been upgraded to W2k, and it is ROCK solid (remarkable for a notebook that is 6 1/2 years old). The ME machine, too, shines with Win2k installed and is still in service with my sister, who uses it in exactly the capacity I had envisioned for myself when I bought it (light office duty and e-mail/Internet). I've numerous friends that had the same experience with ME preinstalled on notebooks/desktops from major manufacturers. The two XP machines see the most use now and are very solid, though I remain convinced (and it's a gut feeling only) that the Win2k machines (which saw two years service with me before I moved on to XP) were less susceptible to blue screening.

Just my 2 bits - an end-user's perspective.
-Darwin (October 13, 2006, 12:31 PM)

If you have a BSOD it clearly tells you the error, of which you can determine what hardware device or driver is the cause. Any BSOD's due to bugs in ME are documented in Microsoft's Knowledgebase and patched. The rest were all caused by Hardware and Driver issues. 98 should never BSOD either if you have working hardware and drivers. This is a very common logical fallacy with people blaming Microsoft for their problems.

Oh and XP is more stable, reliable and faster than 2k. Prefetching alone makes XP boot and applications load twice as fast as 2k. While 2k is very stable, XP is the clearly the better OS.

You should NEVER get a BSOD! If you do something is WRONG! And it needs to be fixed. I can't believe people just continue to use PCs that have problems thinking it is the OS. I work on machines and can tell instantly when something is wrong. People just reboot and curse Microsoft. I meet people all the time that are using PCs with defective RAM, failing HDs, defective Mainboards, are Virus/Malware infected ect... Hardly the fault of Microsoft and the OS.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #51 on:** October 13, 2006, 01:44 PM »

I read it somewhere a number of years ago - unfortunately I haven't got a photographic memory and I can't bothered looking for it. It was certainly the advice on MS forums from MVPs providing consumer support.

The main point is that the life cycle of ME was significantly shorter than 98 - and given that MS work on a fixed number of years support cycles I think that is a significant statement about their feelings on the viability of ME. It was also slated in just about every computer mag in the world when it was released for its apalling stability issues.

Mastertech · « **Reply #52 on:** October 13, 2006, 01:53 PM »

I read it somewhere a number of years ago - unfortunately I haven't got a photographic memory and I can't bothered looking for it. It was certainly the advice on MS forums from MVPs providing consumer support.
-Carol Haynes (October 13, 2006, 01:44 PM)

MVPs are not Microsoft employees. The fact is Microsoft never made any such statement.

The main point is that the life cycle of ME was significantly shorter than 98 - and given that MS work on a fixed number of years support cycles I think that is a significant statement about their feelings on the viability of ME. It was also slated in just about every computer mag in the world when it was released for its apalling stability issues.
-Carol Haynes (October 13, 2006, 01:44 PM)

ME was just discontinued this year. That follows the standard 5 year product life cycle. The fact is 98's lifecycle was extended. I already explained why it made no sense to extend ME beyond the standard 5 years. And no it was not stated in every computer mag about ME having "apalling stability issues". Maximum PC was recommending ME before XP came out. Any rational PC magazine did the same thing (ones that understand the real cause of problems).

wr975 · « **Reply #53 on:** October 13, 2006, 02:14 PM »

You should NEVER get a BSOD! If you do something is WRONG! And it needs to be fixed. I can't believe people just continue to use PCs that have problems thinking it is the OS. I work on machines and can tell instantly when something is wrong. People just reboot and curse Microsoft. I meet people all the time that are using PCs with defective RAM, failing HDs, defective Mainboards, are Virus/Malware infected ect... Hardly the fauly of Microsoft and the OS.

100% agree!

Darwin · « **Reply #54 on:** October 13, 2006, 03:34 PM »

If I get a BSOD something's wrong? Really? Thanks for the insight... You've completely missed my point, which was not that I was whinging about BSOD in XP being the fault of MS but rather that under ME with certified drivers my notebook was simply not stable. This suggests to me that there were serious problems with ME that cannot be explained away by incompatibilities between my OS and the device drivers that I was using. I got BSOD with my notebook out of the box. Regarding BSOD under XP, I rarely get them - I simply noted that it seems to happen more often than under Win2k. When I do get a BSOD under XP, I note the error code, research it, and fix the problem.

Anyway, I respectfully disagree with you about ME in particular, but agree with you about BSOD in general. This discussion needs to move on.

Mastertech · « **Reply #55 on:** October 13, 2006, 05:26 PM »

If I get a BSOD something's wrong? Really? Thanks for the insight... You've completely missed my point, which was not that I was whinging about BSOD in XP being the fault of MS but rather that under ME with certified drivers my notebook was simply not stable. This suggests to me that there were serious problems with ME that cannot be explained away by incompatibilities between my OS and the device drivers that I was using. I got BSOD with my notebook out of the box. Regarding BSOD under XP, I rarely get them - I simply noted that it seems to happen more often than under Win2k. When I do get a BSOD under XP, I note the error code, research it, and fix the problem.

Anyway, I respectfully disagree with you about ME in particular, but agree with you about BSOD in general. This discussion needs to move on.
-Darwin (October 13, 2006, 03:34 PM)

If you were getting a BSOD in ME "out of the box" then something was wrong with either your hardware or a device driver period. I guarantee you that all the drivers were not certified. The cause could have also been a BIOS incompatibility or defective or misconfigured hardware. What was wrong with your notebook in ME was explained away in the BSOD you were getting. That is how they work. There were no "serious issues" with ME except with people who didn't understand the nature of a problem. Time and time again I saw people loading Windows 98 and even worse 95 drivers in ME and then complaining that ME was unstable. I saw people overclocking, using Beta Drivers, having infected machines you name it the cause was never some impossible problem with ME.

And what do you mean you "rarely" get BSODs in XP? I never get BSODs in XP. And you should not unless something is wrong that needs to be fixed and no rebooting the computer is not "fixing it". Windows XP is compatible with more hardware than 2000 is. How many BSODs you get is not a sign of how stable an OS is but how good your hardware and driver situation is.

Darwin · « **Reply #56 on:** October 13, 2006, 07:04 PM »

"Rarely" means rarely, as in not often. What exactly is your problem with my usage of the word, or are you merely being obtuse? I'm thrilled that you never get BSOD and appalled that you're so full of yourself that you assume that I fixed the problems by rebooting and your continued assumption that I loaded 95 and 98 drivers on my notebook. Like f0dder, my paticipation in this particular discussion is over. This thread has devolved into an argument highlighted by circularity and one that, despite now having posted on it three times, is of no interest to me.

jgpaiva · « **Reply #57 on:** October 13, 2006, 07:13 PM »

I'm sorry to see so much people upset for these stupid reasons. Apparently, the discussion really isn't going anywhere productive. That's the problem with myths, they are so close to reality that sometimes it's hard to distinguish the truth from the lie. Although this has been an informative thread, i hate to see it has turned out so badly.

tslim · « **Reply #58 on:** October 13, 2006, 11:07 PM »

Win95 is good
Win98 is better
WinMe is even better
Win2000 is close to the best
and
WinXp is the best
Because they are all from MS, they are perfect!
When MS come up with service patches for any of the above, they are all mean to correct bugs or problems in hardware drivers from the hardware manufacturers, it is their fault not MS's
If you get BSOD, blame the hardware manufacturer like Acer, NVidia, Intel and so on or at least blame yourself for not understanding what the message on a BSOD is trying to tell you...
Technically, let's say you get N BSOD on WinXX using machine A and M BSOD from WinYY using machine B, you may take A and B as factors which contribute to N and M but please DO NOT take XX or YY into account, they are suppose to be exempted.

In brief, the whole world can be wrong except MS, especially when O/S is concerned!
If you don't agree with me for the above, the fault could only be yours not mine.

I am sorry for wasting anyone's time to read till this point...

IMHO, this is the perfect point to close the thread!

nudone · « **Reply #59 on:** October 14, 2006, 01:12 AM »

Win95 is good
Win98 is better
WinMe is even better
Win2000 is close to the best
and
WinXp is the best

you missed a few out, tslim.

win v1 to v3.1 was okay because we didn't expect anything more.

win 2003 was better than everything that came before it because it says '2003' in the title - so it's got to be best, because it's the newest.

win vista is the bestest, bestest, best thing there will ever be - well, until windows 2010 comes out.

app103 · « **Reply #60 on:** October 14, 2006, 01:24 AM »

I have a stable ME box in the other room. Part of the trick to making it stable was NOT using the WinME drivers that were supplied by Microsoft.

It runs much better with Win95 drivers supplied by the hardware manufacturers.

dk70 · « **Reply #61 on:** October 14, 2006, 03:37 AM »

Exactly right app103. The high and mighty myth of using "correct" drivers is nonsense and what has giving WinME a bad name since it is not universal solution.

Especially gamers will know this. You can do all the right things but it still blows (blew?) WinME WDM drivers were cool for office computers, not for gamers. I once spend a day testing a soundcard. Worked Mastertechnially perfect with MS supplied WDM drivers, computer could even go to sleep and wake up again. Too bad games were unplayable. Big fps loss and poor audio. Solution was to use Win98 VXD drivers - yummy. Very hard to make that driver change btw, WinME/MS insisted on WDM drivers, had to do some hacking I think. WDM were automatically installed during boot, had to delete some inf-file or something. Can look it up. Card was Creative SB10, I seem to remember SBlive card was in more or less same mess at some point. There are similar stories where user were forced to either live with situation, wait for driver solution (may be it will never come) or start to tweak away. Has been feeding WinME hate for years.

OS buyers are not happy about having to tune a freshly released OS. Driver hunting/testing not quality time for majority either. Many really should not touch - will go wrong! Does not help to say they did not have to. Whole WinME problem comes from going by the book yet solution is a pain and possibly risky. Some people just expect things to work out of the box even if it has Microsoft written all over it

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #62 on:** October 14, 2006, 06:27 AM »

Win95 is good
Win98 is better
WinMe is even better
Win2000 is close to the best
and
WinXp is the best
Because they are all from MS, they are perfect!
When MS come up with service patches for any of the above, they are all mean to correct bugs or problems in hardware drivers from the hardware manufacturers, it is their fault not MS's
If you get BSOD, blame the hardware manufacturer like Acer, NVidia, Intel and so on or at least blame yourself for not understanding what the message on a BSOD is trying to tell you...
Technically, let's say you get N BSOD on WinXX using machine A and M BSOD from WinYY using machine B, you may take A and B as factors which contribute to N and M but please DO NOT take XX or YY into account, they are suppose to be exempted.

In brief, the whole world can be wrong except MS, especially when O/S is concerned!
If you don't agree with me for the above, the fault could only be yours not mine.

I am sorry for wasting anyone's time to read till this point...
IMHO, this is the perfect point to close the thread!
-tslim (October 13, 2006, 11:07 PM)

The trouble is there is an element of truth in the comment that 3rd party drivers/non-certified drivers cause problems in all versions of Windows. This is mainly due to the open architecture of Windows boxes allowing all and sundry to produce products.

Having said that MS Is often to blame - many companies simply cannot afford the certification system MS has put into place for their drivers. If a company can afford the certification process (also know as ACC4MS) it stifles all innovation and development in drivers because every version will need to be certified and cost a bundle - so who produces new drivers? In the end you end up with large companies dominating the market producing drivers of ever increasing hideousness (such as ATI and Creative) because they can get away with patching versions over and over again.

The fact is that many drivers are not certified and there are many products that simply do not have certified drivers - what are we supposed to do then.

Personally I think it will get worse in VISTA as it is likely to make it harder to use uncertified drivers - which basically means a lot of products going in the bin.

For example, out of the box VISTA RC1 doesn't recognise my old Linksys 54g cards - you can't get much more standard than Linksys/Cisco WiFi cards - how do you use your computer if you can't get drivers for you network devices? (One of the main reasons I don't use Linux too!)

Mastertech · « **Reply #63 on:** October 14, 2006, 06:44 PM »

I have a stable ME box in the other room. Part of the trick to making it stable was NOT using the WinME drivers that were supplied by Microsoft.

It runs much better with Win95 drivers supplied by the hardware manufacturers.
-app103 (October 14, 2006, 01:24 AM)

That has nothing to do with it. There were no stability issues with the drivers Microsoft supplied with ME so long as you were using the exact hardware they were written for. In the end it is simply a matter of getting the correct Windows ME certified drivers for your hardware WHQL being the best.

Mastertech · « **Reply #64 on:** October 14, 2006, 06:57 PM »

Exactly right app103. The high and mighty myth of using "correct" drivers is nonsense and what has giving WinME a bad name since it is not universal solution.
-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 03:37 AM)

Using correct Windows ME drivers is the solution to any DRIVER related problems. Not all problems people were having were driver related. Some were BIOS related others were damaged or misconfigured hardware.

Especially gamers will know this. You can do all the right things but it still blows (blew?) WinME WDM drivers were cool for office computers, not for gamers. I once spend a day testing a soundcard. Worked Mastertechnially perfect with MS supplied WDM drivers, computer could even go to sleep and wake up again. Too bad games were unplayable. Big fps loss and poor audio. Solution was to use Win98 VXD drivers - yummy. Very hard to make that driver change btw, WinME/MS insisted on WDM drivers, had to do some hacking I think. WDM were automatically installed during boot, had to delete some inf-file or something. Can look it up. Card was Creative SB10, I seem to remember SBlive card was in more or less same mess at some point. There are similar stories where user were forced to either live with situation, wait for driver solution (may be it will never come) or start to tweak away. Has been feeding WinME hate for years.
-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 03:37 AM)

Creative Labs has long ago addressed any issues with their drivers for ME. But you have to remember that the WDM drivers were written by Creative Labs any performance issues you may have seen were their fault NOT Microsoft's or ME. Gamers are notorious for not understanding the root of the problem and misplacing blame. If you use a hacked 98 driver in ME and have ANY issues the problem is YOUR FAULT.

OS buyers are not happy about having to tune a freshly released OS. Driver hunting/testing not quality time for majority either. Many really should not touch - will go wrong! Does not help to say they did not have to. Whole WinME problem comes from going by the book yet solution is a pain and possibly risky. Some people just expect things to work out of the box even if it has Microsoft written all over it
-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 03:37 AM)

Tuning and resolving issues are two different things. Out of the box the PC and OS should be error free. Tuning for maximum performance is a separate issue and not one that the OEM is required to address, unless of course you are buying from an OEM that specializes in high performance rigs.

f0dder · « **Reply #65 on:** October 14, 2006, 07:43 PM »

I suggest all the rest of you stop wasting time on this troll as well... I got a nice privmsg from another member, which I hope he won't mind me quoting anonymously.

Hi, I see you wisely say goodbye to Mastertech. Just to make sure and to prevent future damage, you do know who he is right? Try Google if not. Banned from tons of tech forums due to spamming, manipulation of quotes, forum rules, facts and generally being a pain in the butt. Last week he got kicked out of Avast forum of all places, list is never ending. Even has a website dedicated to him http://nanobox.chipx...6.com/FirefoxFables/ about his favorite topic which he have no idea about.

If you get the idea all it takes is cool facts think again. If lucky he will simply ignore you. Somehow I doubt many DC members are interesting to his black/white/myth logic but dont forget you have no idea what he can make you do

The regular annoying clown X 10 = Mastertech.
-anonymous

(Sorry, mouser)

Mastertech · « **Reply #66 on:** October 14, 2006, 07:53 PM »

I suggest all the rest of you stop wasting time on this troll as well... I got a nice privmsg from another member, which I hope he won't mind me quoting anonymously.
-f0dder (October 14, 2006, 07:43 PM)

I know who you got that from too. Fodder just because you are unable to back up anything you claim does not mean you are allowed to try and discredit me as a troll. You posted two disputes with the XP Myths page, I posted multiple sources stating clearly that you are wrong and you are unable to provide a single one. This is not my problem nor does it warrant some personal attack to save face.

Hi, I see you wisely say goodbye to Mastertech. Just to make sure and to prevent future damage, you do know who he is right? Try Google if not. Banned from tons of tech forums due to spamming, manipulation of quotes, forum rules, facts and generally being a pain in the butt. Last week he got kicked out of Avast forum of all places, list is never ending. Even has a website dedicated to him http://nanobox.chipx...6.com/FirefoxFables/ about his favorite topic which he have no idea about.

If you get the idea all it takes is cool facts think again. If lucky he will simply ignore you. Somehow I doubt many DC members are interesting to his black/white/myth logic but dont forget you have no idea what he can make you do

The regular annoying clown X 10 = Mastertech.
-anonymous
-f0dder (October 14, 2006, 07:43 PM)

Oh and I was not kicked off the Avast Forums. I have also not been banned from tons of forums. And please read www.FirefoxFables.com not that this has anything to do with Firefox Myths but at least it confirms where you got your PM from. Calling me a troll and trying to attack me personally doesn't change any of the facts on how these features work in XP.

Also on the Black/White Nature of Myths. That is the way computers work, they are not emotional machines that change based on their moods.

f0dder · « **Reply #67 on:** October 14, 2006, 08:04 PM »

I only have one thing to add: http://www.google.co...h?q=mastertech+troll

Mastertech · « **Reply #68 on:** October 14, 2006, 08:07 PM »

I only have one thing to add: http://www.google.co...h?q=mastertech+troll
-f0dder (October 14, 2006, 08:04 PM)

Of course you do, instead of a single source to back up any of your claims.

dk70 · « **Reply #69 on:** October 14, 2006, 08:59 PM »

I dont like spreading false information of course. If the good Avast people indeed did not ban you Im sorry for getting that impression.

From Avast forum. Lets take Administrator first - replaced Mastertech mythical words with these (in big red letters):

ADMIN WARNING: Mastertech, that was the last time you posted here the flame bait. Next time you're getting permaban.
Others: Don't feed the troll.

We move to Moderator now, october 04.

"Mastertech got banned, and that was absolutely correct. No one else (except for the spammers) got a permanent ban, and that's correct as well."

Lots more but no need since there is living proof right here... This is the true internet story http://nanobox.chipx...6.com/FirefoxFables/

Also use Google to refresh real life WinME problems from real life users next time you look yourself up Mastertech - this is very old news/facts. The WinME hate which has annoyed me since long is understandable from a consumers point of view - most are consumers. If you insist I can look up my SB10 story - I was gamer, I understood problem with certified by MICROSOFT and automatically installed wdm-drivers and I fixed it with older Win98 version. WDM drivers were cpu hogging and hopeless at the time - but as said computer could go into standby and wakeup. Ideal for 1000s of client machines right? And who needs more than 1 reputable source.

Compared to Win98 ME was close to waste of time - or buying time from MS perspective. Not much value for money, also adds to negative ME-vibes. Not much to see or like.

Mastertech · « **Reply #70 on:** October 15, 2006, 01:07 AM »

I dont like spreading false information of course. If the good Avast people indeed did not ban you Im sorry for getting that impression.
-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 08:59 PM)

So then why bring it up? It has nothing to do with the topic except attempt to undermind my credibility. Myth topics are controversial because people do not want to accept the reality especially when they can't back up how they "think" something works.

From Avast forum. Lets take Administrator first - replaced Mastertech mythical words with these (in big red letters):

ADMIN WARNING: Mastertech, that was the last time you posted here the flame bait. Next time you're getting permaban.
Others: Don't feed the troll.
-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 08:59 PM)

Like I said I'm not banned from these forums. The Avast forums has a few delusional Firefox Fanatics who are obsessed with the browser and cannot handle a rational discussion of it. This is not my problem. None of which changes the facts that were presented.

Lots more but no need since there is living proof right here... This is the true internet story http://nanobox.chipx...6.com/FirefoxFables/
-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 08:59 PM)

Proof from who? David Hammond? The most rabid Firefox Fanboy in existence? You mean the one that when you visited his site in Internet Explorer you received a Window warning you of how dangerous it was to use Internet Explorer? Like I said please do read: www.FirefoxFables.com.

Also use Google to refresh real life WinME problems from real life users next time you look yourself up Mastertech - this is very old news/facts. The WinME hate which has annoyed me since long is understandable from a consumers point of view - most are consumers. If you insist I can look up my SB10 story - I was gamer, I understood problem with certified by MICROSOFT and automatically installed wdm-drivers and I fixed it with older Win98 version. WDM drivers were cpu hogging and hopeless at the time - but as said computer could go into standby and wakeup. Ideal for 1000s of client machines right? And who needs more than 1 reputable source.
-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 08:59 PM)

Refresh myself with what? That the majority of people do not now what they are doing? How is that news? I deal with consumers daily, irrational fear and fud simply spreads like wildfire online. What does that prove? Nothing. All that matters in the end is the truth. Gamers are the worst, they jump to irrational conclusions before anyone and most barely have the technical knowledge to properly install a soundcard. They jump on forum post bandwagons no matter what the source and just spread nonsense even faster. The facts of your problem do not change. The driver issue is purely a creative labs one and has nothing to do with Microsoft of ME. Creative Labs does not have a great track record with drivers.

Compared to Win98 ME was close to waste of time - or buying time from MS perspective. Not much value for money, also adds to negative ME-vibes. Not much to see or like.
-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 08:59 PM)

Why because you had one alleged PERFORMANCE issue (long ago resolved) with a creative labs driver in ME when it came out? The DEFAULT WDM driver was written by CREATIVE LABS! Why did you not slam them? Or did they cop out and blame ME too? This is the typical knee-jerk reaction from people when they have any issue. Not to mention this in no way relates to XP Myths or the original mention of ME as being "unstable". You need to learn how to identify who is at fault and who is to blame.

mouser · « **Reply #71 on:** October 15, 2006, 01:20 AM »

Let's at least all agree that WinXP is miles ahead of WinME in terms of stability.
When i think back to the old days of having to reboot win9x and winME frequently to knock some sense into my computer i feel dizzy.

* mouser hugs his WinXP

nudone · « **Reply #72 on:** October 15, 2006, 01:41 AM »

i've found this thread entertaining and unusual for the DonationCoder Forum. although there have been times we have had passionate discussions, i can't remember one that took on such an antagonistic nature.

i have no idea who is right, i'm not even going to say that 'there is truth to both sides of the argument', i'm not interested as i can see that this argument is now self perpetuating.

i certainly don't wish to see Mastertech banned from the forum. someone with that kind of knowledge is always welcome and so are their opinions.

can i just remind everyone that no one possess 100% certainty, there is always room for disagreement and conflicting opinion. this thread has degenerated into attacking Mastertech, which i don't think is in the spirit of our little community.

rather than everyone continuing in the current direction this thread is going, can we soon (or immediately) draw a line and stop any further argument. i'm sure Mastertech can be just as welcome here as the next person. let's just hope that this particular thread got off on the wrong foot - no one is at fault or to blame, it's just one of those topics that will not result in a complete consensus.

often people just have to agree to disagree - and then move on. can we now please move on?

app103 · « **Reply #73 on:** October 15, 2006, 03:46 AM »

Remember, folks...this is the same Microsoft that brought you things like WinME...which even they have never had any clue on how to make it stable.
-app103 (October 13, 2006, 06:43 AM)

Just in case anybody here didn't quite get it (cough* Mastertech *cough)...the above quote from me was a JOKE. Not something meant to be twisted around into a flame war....or taken seriously.

Even though I make fun of WinME and old slow computers and anything else in my life that might annoy me, I happen to love my old WinME computer very much...every bit of it and all it's odd quirks (especially some of it's odd quirks) and I wouldn't part with it or change it's OS again for all the money in the world.

Part of having a good sense of humor is being able to laugh at yourself, which I am doing right now...because I am bothering to post this reply.

Now let's try this again...just a little different this time...

Remember, folks...this is the same Microsoft that brought you things like MS Bob.

mouser · « **Reply #74 on:** October 15, 2006, 04:03 AM »

nudone you took the words out of my mouth