3 ms·
You're right, I had Real and Standard mixed up. You definitely didn't want to run 3.0, though. That was a complete mess, and the beginning point of where Micros
by Firehawke 6y ago
You're right, I had Real and Standard mixed up. You definitely didn't want to run 3.0, though. That was a complete mess, and the beginning point of where Microsoft started to make a turn-around in stability.
3.0 would crash every 15 minutes on average.
3.1 would crash every 45 minutes on average.
95 would go a day at a time, 98 would go several days, XP was stable a month at a time when there weren't major exploits or bad driver behavior.
...and so on. I may be overstating the impact SLIGHTLY, but 3.0 really was crash prone to the point magazines heavily pushed people to 3.1 when that came out, and 95 was definitely significantly improved over that, and so forth (skipping ME, of course) until XP.
- vardump 6y agoIn my experience, Windows 98 crashed more often, mostly due to running out of "resources". Windows 98 GUI was more complex, thus wasting more of these "resources", running out and crashing. XP, on the other hand, practically never crashed, unless you had bad drivers. Just like Windows NT4 & 2000 before it.