"Howard Schwartz" <howardbschwartz4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97E96FDD95E60howardbcaliforniacom@38.119.71.210...
> Although I tried 2000 for a while, I now use windows 98 for most of my pc
> needs. There are significant freeware tradeoffs to upgrading to MS's
> latest OS, compared to staying with one that works well for you for a
> number of years: Many new freeware applications only work on the
> newer OS's. Many beloved old application do not work well or at
> all on the newer OS's.
>
> Generally, each new MS OS, seems to require more hardware to work
> decently:
> more disk space, more ram, faster processor, every so often new kinds of
> ports (e.g., USB), and new kinds of buses, more disk space, etc. Often
> enough old working hardware needs to be replaced because of driver
> problems, incompatible cables, ports, file systems (NTFS).
>
> I stagnated at 98 because it still sports a real dos underneath, and
> I retain a host of still very useful dos programs. Yet, the thing
> seems more unstable and tempremental than even 95: One corrupt file or
> setting somewhere, and often a complete reinstall seems the only thing
> that repairs the problem.
>
> The newer OSs, claim much better stability using NTFS, eliminating dos,
> various self repair mechanisms, etc. But, one's computer then seems
> doomed to never become like a car or a VCR: Once you learn it, you
> learned it and it continues to do things you want in the same way
> for years.
>
> Any opinions whether to perpetually upgrade or when, why and how to
> stop at a particular OS?
>
Hi H.
You have to analyse what you actually Do with your machine.
Does the one you have fulfill all your computing tasks.
Everyone could keep chucking money at upgrades, and still Do,
on the machine, what they`ve always done.
That would be a total waste of cash.
It`s impossible to catch up with technology now.
Todays new stuff is old hat by next week.
My yardsick, is to stay 1 year behind the current.
That way parts have come down to a realistic price.