[Author/submitter here] > very expensive family computers in 2000 with "no sound support." This was not a family computer. It was an expensive high-end profes

[Author/submitter here] > very expensive family computers in 2000 with "no sound support." This was not a family computer. It was an expensive high-end professional machine. But saying that... yes, you're right, and that is the primary reason why I called it out in the review 23 years ago. I felt it was inexcusable then (and now it looks even worse, of course). The secondary reason, which I couldn't spell out so clearly without losing the magazine several £million in advertising per year, was this: If one of the biggest PC companies selling its own hardware with this OS can't get the sound chip working, this tells you several things: * They are not very expert at doing this and that means they don't really know what they are doing. So, if you want all your devices to work, smoothly, and keep working, you should choose a specialist vendor instead. * That this OS is not really ready for prime time yet because even a major vendor can't get its sound support working, so watch out, and don't buy this for any kind of audio work. In other words, pointing out a minor flaw was my way of putting up a big warning sign.