Subject | Re: How do I do this on Windows? |
From | Steve Carroll |
Date | 04/25/2004 02:03 (04/25/2004 02:03) |
Message-ID | <fretwizz-C4FCAD.18061624042004@netnews.comcast.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
Follows | §¼¡Ý |
"Nash*ton" <Nash@nash.com>wrote in ltCic.27443$Np3.1010150@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 4/24/04 4:10 PM:Gee... you two sound kind of paranoid. I mean... it's not like you are being hunted for writing webpages that contain sexually harassing material and then claiming you didn't do it... that some guy named Sigmond who broke into your house did it from your computer, is it? And it's not like you are trying (unsuccessfully, I might add) to forge IP addresses, right? Or taking quotes of out context intentionally to misrepresent what people said at a later date? Hell, you probably have never even rewritten a quote and subsequently posted it in an attempt to pretend someone wrote something they didn't write. What kind of a person would do these types of things... (and on a weekly basis) all the while whining how he is being 'attacked' because people confront him about them? I can even imagine anyone in here (that wasn't taken heavy drugs for an illness he 'claims' to have) doing any of these things.Nash*tonLOL... even worse, if you really upset them by showing them all the lies you have found in their posts, they follow you around... just watch who responds to this post - a particularly nasty and bigoted troll is sure to do so.
Jeffery Priddy wrote:Jeffery PriddyNash*ton
In news:jpolaski-EB3E4E.03510723042004@netnews.comcast.net, Jim Polaski <jpolaski@NOync.net>wrote:Jim PolaskiJeffery Priddy
The study also compared a number of hardware alternatives and proposed the following cost comparisons: DOS $8,980 Windows 3.1 $7,251 Windows 95 $6,530 Windows NT $6,516 Macintosh $5,075 UNIX $12,973
Considering that W2K is NT in a new coat of paint, this may just be not too far off even today.
No, Jim, you're completely wrong about that. Believe me, I have a lot of experience with NT4 and W2k, and W2k was a BIG improvement. Almost as big as OS 9 to OS X. NT was *extremely* picky about hardware and drivers, had a more limited HCL than 9x and W2k, and had no built-in support for USB or power management. W2k is very good IME WRT plug and play-- not perfect, but orders of magnitude better than NT for adding new hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if just the PnP and USB alone could push W2k's TCO way lower than NT's. And don't get me started about Active Directory and Group Policy-- anybody who knows how to leverage those well in a corporate environment can really improve their TCO, and the policy model for W2k is vastly richer than for NT4. At the risk of being blunt, I don't really think you know what you're talking about here.
Now, if you said that XP was W2k with a new coat of paint, I'd say that's not too far from the truth. But NT? No way, no how.
Jim doesn't know much about Windows, neither do many of the "advocates" here. His post is further proof of this fact. They'll either killfile you, call you stupid or insult you and your family in order to prove that they're right. Some are so emotional about it, it's pathetic.
Define crazy. Is a person crazy when he is afraid to leave his/her house? Or will a simple fear of having your blood pressure taken fit the description? Hmm... it could just be someone who claims to be a hard working teacher but can be found posting to usenet at all hours of the day and night all week long. Or maybe it'd be the person that believes such a tale. Yeah... I think that person might qualify as crazy. That reminds me... I've been meaning to ask you... does Annie know you post here as often as you do? Hmmm... the idea that you are married is starting to make some sense to me now.I know nothing about NT or W2K and I've never had an opinion about it. OTOH, IME, XP is just as easy to use, as easy to learn and as stable as OS X and I'm using both OSs.Oh no... I disagree with you! The troll in question will go crazy!
I do think that XP is better than 98 both in terms of stability and, with the common task panel, ease of use. I do not think it is designed as well as OS X in many areas. Then again there are places where XP has OS X beat.You didn't point the OP to my shrine... gee, I feel slighted :)
I know you have seen it Nicolas, but I do not know if the original poster has... my comparison site:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/