sapiens74 0 Posted April 3, 2002 Problem is, the same people who like less GUI don't like a newer operation system regardless of its merits, if it has too much eye candy. DOS users hated Win 95, and Now we have Linux to plunge us back in the stone age, if we feel the need to not want to click, and type everything in manually. XP is a transition, between old, Win 98,ME, and new Nt based kernel and such. I really like XP and I think its the start of good things to come from Redmond. But in a businees sense deploying 2000 is a lot easier, expecially on hardware requirements and I see no need to go to XP till late next year if not 2004. Share this post Link to post
clutch 1 Posted April 3, 2002 Quote: XP is mearly Win2k with "family" options. Completely unreliable in an office environment, due to its resource abusing structure and hopeless security 'upgrades' (even with the AD tools and patches). Why would users need administration rights to use Microsoft Photo editor? and not to ad extra hardware? My 2000 machines can run on minimum spec boxes and laptops, be secure and still play games, make movies and I don't need to spend half an hour removing NPNP applications like MSN messenger. And in my opinion the only reason it runs an NT platform is because of the disgusting travisty that ME was, proving that the old 9x infrastructure was finally dead. I haven't had any issues deploying XP Pro on the workstations in the 3 office environments that I manage (2 of which are full AD, while one is NT4/2K/XP in an NT4 Domain). I also like being able to connect directly to the workstation and remotely control it as needed, and when combined with its simple firewall makes remote deployment of these units more reliable with less cost (no third party remote control or firewall apps). So far I have run XP Pro on PII 266s with 128MB of RAM in one environment to my 2.4GHz box with 1GB of RAM at home and I haven't been disappointed. Also, I imagine that the real reason behind shifting from that horrible DOS core (which worked fine when it was just supporting DOS ) was to have a single platform to support rather than this split that they have had for such a long time now. Right now, I would have to say that I like XP Pro when I am installing it for myself, and Windows 2000 or XP when I am installing it for a client. I do like NT4 still, but when I tested the earlier AD connectors they reminded me of the flaky performance that the first client32s from Novell for Novell 5 were like. They weren't that great at all, and I just never bothered to keep up with them and watch their improvement. Share this post Link to post
deeman 0 Posted April 4, 2002 I use XP, 2K and 98, And XP is by far the most stable and user friendly. 2K is good, but XP is 2K + additions & fixes. Go XP. Share this post Link to post
Dirty Harry 0 Posted April 4, 2002 Quote: It's a tie.........they all suck.... Finally the correct answer. Ooh yes they do. Subscribe to the pragmatic view that newer must be better (forget ME though) and see the light, we are still driving the T-fords of operating systems on hardware that is a mule path. Can't wait for Germany, free speeds for free people and a Mercedes with the biggest engine w/o the speed capping and wrooom H. Share this post Link to post
