Redmond or Bust

The choice of operating system was easier - I've used and worked on nearly all of the desktop and server PC operating systems over the years, and have always come back to Microsoft's as being the best compromise between ease-of-use and reliability. Most of their software errs on the side of the former, of course, but I've used all of Uncle Bill's offspring and by now I know their little ways... They're not usually fragile OS's given careful attention, in spite of the prevailing opinion, and I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is: at the office I have an NT4 server that has been running constantly, if admittedly under a fairly light load, for over nine months as I write this.

My previous home systems have walked up through most of the DOS versions, Windows 3 in all it's fabulous horribleness, and then to 95 and 98. With dual CPUs already on the shopping list, the only real choice was whether to go for the tried and tested NT4, or the new and possibly wonderful Win2K. I wanted to move forward, though, and one year on I really like 2K - it's quick, it doesn't usually crash except when I stress it by trying to hot-upgrade uncertified beta device drivers, and apart from some DOS games, it runs most of the odd miscellany of old and new software I've thrown at it - Microsoft's various Application Compatibility Updates have helped tremendously with this.


Back Forward