|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Gary Fritz wrote:
>
> > I went with WIN98se simply because I wanted an optical drive with
> > a harware decoder, and there were no WIN 2000 drivers available for
> > this vendor's hardware decoder's drives. If I had it to do over
> > again though, I'd definitely go with WIN 2000....it sure couldn't
> > be worse than 98.
>
> Win98 is just a dressed-up Win95, which is mostly just a cosmetic
> update to Win 3.1, which is a pretty face on top of DOS.
I want my CP/M back!!!!!! (just kidding....but I often think a command
line is a better place to be).
> All of them
> have fundamental flaws and weaknesses in their design that make it
> extremely difficult to write solid and reliable applications.
Kindly put.
>
> Win ME is basically Win98 with fewer options. To quote the estimable
> Fred Langa, "It's Windows with training wheels. As such, it'll be
> great for utter newbies because they won't be able to get themselves
> into much trouble. ... any moderately experienced Windows user will
> feel stymied and hemmed in by WinME's deliberate limitations."
A WinME cd was delivered to my door last week, a free upgrade from
Micron. Based on the reviews I've read on WinME, I wasted no time
tossing it into a box where it will undoubtedly sit to the end of the
Millenium.
>
> WinNT, on the other hand, has almost nothing in common with the Win9x
> family. It was designed from the ground up as an honest-to-God
> operating system, by people (NOT from Microsoft) who had actually
> done that successfully in the past.
That's real news to me. But I should have surmised a stable operating
system could not have really come from microsoft. Do you know where it
came from?
> It's far more bullet-proof than
> Win9x ever dreamed of being.
>
> Win2k, as I understand it, is the next generation of WinNT.
> Everything I've heard says it's better, faster, and more solid than
> WinNT, even though it's barely out of the lab. It sounds as though
> Microsoft learned from their betters and took NT to the next level of
> functionality and reliability.
I've heard good things about Win2000 from people on this List who speak
from knowledge and experience.
>
> If I wasn't already on NT, I'd absolutely upgrade to Win2K. IMHO the
> Win9x platform is not suitable for mission-critical applications.
It is not suitable for lesser applications either. It's flakey and
loaded with gotchas, and 'improvements' that make no sense. For
instance, many of its file menus have a 'send to' function. To me, the
term 'send to' expresses a move, not a simple copy. But copy is what it
does (on a good day). The whole idea of burying the Windows Explorer
(File Manager) in an 'out-of-the-way' place, under nested
subdirectories, is indicative of the philosophy behind the OS design. It
seems to say, 'Don't worry, you don't have to mess with those file
thingys anymore, or know your directory structure at all, we'll take
care of all that user un-friendly stuff for you. See? We're as easy as a
Mac.'
> Since I already have a very stable platform, I'll give Win2K a few
> releases to get even more solid & get some more drivers &etc, but I
> will eventually move. Win2K is obviously the future of Windows.
I'll either move to win2000 when they have the drivers i need, or I'll
move first and replace my drives with currently supported hardware.
Thanks for the interesting info.
Regards,
Monte
|