news

Re: How do I do this on Win...

Nash*ton
SubjectRe: How do I do this on Windows?
FromNash*ton
Date04/25/2004 08:29 (04/25/2004 08:29)
Message-ID<zVIic.28223$Np3.1016047@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Client
Newsgroupscomp.sys.mac.advocacy
FollowsJim Polaski

Jim Polaski wrote:

Jim Polaski
In article <c6e5k9$tq1$2@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, Jeffery Priddy <jpriddy@spambegone.mail.duke.edu>wrote:

Jeffery Priddy
In news:jpolaski-EB3E4E.03510723042004@netnews.comcast.net, Jim Polaski <jpolaski@NOync.net>wrote:

Jim Polaski
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.

Jeffery Priddy
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 Polaski
Jeff, you can fault me for a bad metaphor if you will, but yes, W2k is an improvement, etc and far better than XP for what it's worth to many.

That said, I've also never said I was an expert on NT or W2k in the same manner that the Windiots claim to be experts in the Mac.

Which begs the question: Do you know *anything* about XP? Because if you're going to advocate the Mac, just stating that XP is vulnerable to viruses, trojans and spyware doesn't cut the cheese, not even cottage cheese..

Nicolas


Thread