On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 01:00:50PM -0700, perdurabo wrote: > > Additionally, Windows 2000 was not designed for home users. > > Windows ME was. 2000 was designed for the business desktop. > > No, but it saw widespread use amongst home users. Windows Me was > largely rejected. Most users with existing machines stayed with 98, > most people buying new machines obtained Windows 2000.
Windows Me was useless and everyone knew it. It is the only version of a non-NT Windows that you couldn't actually make a boot floppy from. This was billed as an anti-piracy feature. Most users realized that boot floppies were more about fixing your broken registry without a complete wipe/reinstall than about piracy, so were not amused. > And really, Windows 2000 was originally designed for home users, too. > It's just that they thought Windows 2000 wasn't quite there yet, and > so they didn't position it as such. But, if you look at press release > and articles before the release of Windows 2000, that was definitely > their goal: a new (modern) platform for home users. Hey, a default Win00 will never show you a BSOD, ever. ;) Granted, you might not prefer it just randomly rebooting in the middle of whatever you were doing instead of showing you that BSOD, but at least Microsoft was able to promise that the BSOD was a thing of the past. > > Windows 2003 is Windows Server 2003. I'm sure it would make a > > good Windows workstation OS because they strip the multimedia > > crap out. > > They did a lot more than that, but to refrain from being attacked by > Linux fanboys who've never used it, I'll withhold the descriptions. Please don't. Some of us non-Linux fanboys don't have/want it, but expect that at some point before it disappears into obscurity, we may be asked to do something with it. > > But since there isn't a 2003 Workstation version you > > won't be finding it for under $200 without jumping through some > > hoops. > > Which is exactly what I intimated. Yeah, I'm sure not paying > $200 for it either, but I have a very legitimate-looking Microsoft Windows 2000 pressed CD here that does not request a CD key upon installation. It came with the little Microsoft certificate and everything, and I didn't have to pay four and five digit price tags for it either. All indications are that it is legitimate. I'd question that, if not for the certificate. =) Of course, if Microsoft believes otherwise, they're certainly welcome to talk to me during one of their witch-hunt software exchanges. You know, you bring them what you have, they tell you that it's legit or give you a full copy of that product in exchange for info about where you got it. (Call it retribution for spamming me after I bought from them!) > > I'll stick to my stripped XP for it's slightly better > > hardware support and better multimedia support for when I do > > boot to Windows once a week or so. > > My point with mentioning 2003 was not to try and convert anyone away > from XP/etc. I was merely stating that Microsoft is definitely heading > (albeit sluggishly so) in positive directions with regards to secure > OS architectures. This is especially true with the new security stuff > in 2003 SP1. Of course they are. The market is demanding it of them. When people start saying that your product is demonstrably hazardous and lobbying for legislation that would make you legally responsible for damages regardless of your warranty disclaimer, you start moving in directions that will avoid lawsuits for negligence. It's as simple as that. > FYI, XP drivers work on 2003, so anything that works on XP should work > in 2003. Furthermore, all the multimedia junk can be > enabled/installed, as evidenced by the infamous "2003 as a > workstation" paper. Noting, once again, that some of us may be forced to deal with it whether we like it or not, a summary of differences (or reference to one) would be appreciated. I don't need a HOWTO, just a list. =) > A little something promising for those of us UNIX people stuck using Windows. I thought the promising thing for UNIX people stuck using Windows was Darwine for Intel chips. ;) > _______________________________________________ > EUGLUG mailing list > euglug@euglug.org > http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list euglug@euglug.org http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
