My 2c on NT stability: I agree with Spots.
I've been running NT for about a year now, with similar results--blue screens when the larger configuration is unstable, and otherwise very solid stability.
I also find it much less rocky than I did Win 95.
As I mentioned earlier, Drive Image insulates me from the re-install effort that Spots rightly notes.
I'd also add that IMHO, the list of reasons for serious traders/computer users to move to NT is growing, despite 98's impending release--provided that you need not run a legacy application or hardware that isn't compatible with it. Among the most notable:
--it makes much better use of extra memory than W98 and especially W95, because of its better multithreading and sophisticated disk caching. Since memory is becoming dirt cheap, and many of us are increasingly doing multiple simultaneous applications, this is a real plus.
--its architecture is the future. MS has announced that W98 will be the last non-NT kernal based version of windows. After that, its NT 5, then a home-user version of NT 5, probably in 2000. Getting familiar with it now seems well worthwhile.
--NT 4 is mature and, if properly configured, consistent and reliable. 95 comes in too many flavors (95b, OSR2, etc.) and has lots of other shortcomings, and 98 will need some time before it's mature. |
