Re: Which version of windows

Article View: demon.tech.pc

Article #22673

#22673

From: Peter Hutchinson
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:00

20 lines
1447 bytes

On Wed, 10 May 2000 12:36:53 +0000, "Paul Richards (Pauldoo)"
<pauldoo@dunvegan1.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> installed.  Which do you think would look best on my CV?  W2K, 95/98, or
> some kind of NT?

NT experience is more likely to get you some form of kudos on a CV than any
flavour of Billyshit 9x, though the chances of either doing a lot for you
are usually fairly slim.

> So far I think I'll install 2K or 95/98...  Most likely 2K.

Err... you'll be doing extremely well to get 2K into 500 meg, or NT4 for
that matter, without any other Billyshit stuff installed. If you do it's
likely to chug along a bit as (assuming none of your other partitions are
FAT/NTFS) it'll have bugger all room for a pagefile.

-- 
Peter Hutchinson    peter@news.hutch.org.uk
Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <3919e565.268761608@news.hutch-systems.co.uk>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail

References: <391957E5.5C5291FC@dunvegan1.demon.co.uk>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1036bc,c77f3e393d1765e0
X-Google-Attributes: gid1036bc,public
From: nospam05@news.hutch.org.uk (Peter Hutchinson)
Subject: Re: Which version of windows
Date: 2000/05/10
Message-ID: <3919e565.268761608@news.hutch-systems.co.uk>
X-Deja-AN: 621784525
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: phutch.demon.co.uk:194.222.235.79
References: <391957E5.5C5291FC@dunvegan1.demon.co.uk>
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 957999699 nnrp-11:28070 NO-IDENT phutch.demon.co.uk:194.222.235.79
Reply-To: peter@news.hutch.org.uk
Newsgroups: demon.tech.pc
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net

Reply to Parent Message