news

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

Jim Polaski
SubjectRe: How do I do this on Windows?
FromJim Polaski
Date04/26/2004 07:43 (04/26/2004 07:43)
Message-ID<jpolaski-E68F43.00425526042004@netnews.comcast.net>
Client
Newsgroupscomp.sys.mac.advocacy
FollowsNash*ton
FollowupsJeffery Priddy (2d, 20h & 24m)

In article <ltCic.27443$Np3.1010150@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Nash*ton <Nash@nash.com>wrote:

Nash*ton
Jeffery Priddy 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.

Nash*ton
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. 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.

Nicolas

While XP is better, if you will, it's still Windows. There is a legion of support folks who make their living fixing what's wrong with it. Fixing the layered silliness that keeps many average users from getting two machines to exchange files. So many folks have unforseen problems. The radio show in Chicago wouldn't exist if it were not for the difficulties folks have with XP and other flavors of Windows. I don't have to be critical of XP or any version of Windows for it to have a negative reputation for many users. For the average Mr. User, he's better off with XP instead of its earlier parents, but that's still not fixing the problems. Still, Windows is more expensive to administer in a networked environment, like a school, k-12 for one.

-- Regards, JP "The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

Jeffery Priddy (2d, 20h & 24m)

Thread