Re: FW: Fatuities (was 'Another BIG mainframe . . . ')
- From: m42tom-ibmmain@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Tom Marchant)
- Date: 11 Sep 2006 03:53:16 -0700
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:34:48 -0400, Phil Smith III <lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You are saying that XP is four orders of magnitude more stable than 3.1?
That means on the order of 10,000 times better. It's not.
Yeah yeah, ok, not a full order of magnitude but you knew what I meant.
Sheesh.
Yeah, but that's the kind of misinformation that makes people think that
they should bet the farm on Microsoft. Each of those is indeed an
improvement, but some of them are only marginally better. To refer to
them as being an order of magnitude better is just not right. I wouldn't
categorize *any* of them as being any near that big an improvement. I
*might* grant you that XP is an order of magnitude more stable than 3.1.
Tom Marchant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: FW: Fatuities (was 'Another BIG mainframe . . . ')
- From: Robert Lawrence
- RE: FW: Fatuities (was 'Another BIG mainframe . . . ')
- Prev by Date: SPC?
- Next by Date: FW: HFS Vs ZFs
- Previous by thread: Re: FW: Fatuities (was 'Another BIG mainframe . . . ')
- Next by thread: RE: FW: Fatuities (was 'Another BIG mainframe . . . ')
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
