RE: Windows 2000

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>
From:Pam Marcum <pmarcum@polysciences.com>
To:"Horn, Hazel" <HornHazelV@exchange.ach.uams.edu>, 'amos brooks' <atbrooks@snet.net>, Ian Montgomery <ian.montgomery@bio.gla.ac.uk>
Reply-To:
Content-Type:text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I think you are right, the new home version is due later this year.  As
usual with Big Bill we Windows 2000 on 2001.  Pam

-----Original Message-----
From: Horn, Hazel [mailto:HornHazelV@exchange.ach.uams.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 9:05 AM
To: 'amos brooks'; Ian Montgomery
Cc: histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
Subject: RE: Windows 2000


I believe Win 2000 is primarily for businesses..........not for home use.
Hazel

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	amos brooks [SMTP:atbrooks@snet.net]
> Sent:	Wednesday, March 08, 2000 04:32 PM
> To:	Ian Montgomery
> Cc:	histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
> Subject:	Re: Windows 2000
>
> Hi,
>     My philosophy on new operating systems is to let others be the guinea
> pigs. When
> they find all the bugs then I'll try it. By the way Win 2000 does not
> support direct X
> ... therefore NO GAMES :-(
> Amos Brooks
>
> Ian Montgomery wrote:
>
> >         Before I prise open the wallet and let the moths out, anyone
> using Windows
> > 2000. What do you think of it, should I bother and just stick to 98.
> > Ian.
>
>




<< Previous Message | Next Message >>