> By there own hand M$ managed to allow the mongrel hordes to tear into its once mighty > stranglehold.
there >>> their, a typo, I promise... Another good thing about XP Pro, the introduction of VSS for file backup purposes, ditto for 2003 Server, although the TS CAL fee is still insane. Gil > -----Original Message----- > From: profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com > [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com]on Behalf Of Gil Hale > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:34 AM > To: profoxt...@leafe.com > Subject: RE: When is an administrator not an administrator? > > > > 98 was good > > ME sucked > > XP was good > > Vista sucked > > > > Now it looks like Windows 7 is faster than XP. > > > > Hmmm... A bit of recent history was lost in the dust of time, > almost. Her > is how I recall it: > > 1) DOS 2.1 was not bad, pretty good in fact. My first OS, 1984. > > 2) DOS 3 was actually a nice improvement, but not crucial > > 3) DOS 4 made no sense, but DR DOS 5 was great! > > 4) DOS 5, I never bothered as DR DOS 5 was so good > > 5) DOS 6 seemed good, but DR DOS 7 was really great with its built in > networking and free disk compression > > 6) Win 3.x was real edgy, I hated it for its instability, but saw the way > the world was going. DR DOS was still my preferred OS, but DOS 6 was a > viable alternative > > 7) Win 95 was innovative for its time, but was consistent in its lack of > stability. I loved hearing The Rolling Stones (Start It Up) get so much > airplay, even if instigated by M$. The floodgates open, the world changes > forever and M$ is becoming the recognized king of platforms. A mournful > "See you later, but more likely never again" to DR DOS. > > 8) Win NT 3.x was stable, but lacked a decent interface for > mortals, Novell > was superior > > 9) Win 98 was less unstable than Win 95, but still was not great. > Had some > nice additional features. > > 10) Win NT 4 Workstation and Server were rock solid, and had nice > interfaces. Look out Novell! Shame NT Workstation could never really > replace Win98. > > 11) Win ME was the best example of having a Win release that made no sense > whatever for anyone but M$, and that was only good for driving upgrade > revenue. Awful, very unstable, a major step backward. When Win 2000 Pro > later came out, and the M$ web site began to recommend Win 2000 Pro to fix > remaining Win ME problems, that said it all. > > 12) Windows 2000 Pro and Server were really awful out the gate, but held > promise. With the eventual SP4 release Win 2000 Pro & Server became rock > solid. Reliable, fairly small footprint, worth the upgrade from pre-2000 > platforms. THIS is the OS missed in Michael Madigan's short list. > > 13) Win XP Really sucked at first, but with SP1 finally came into its own. > It was bad enough we had a Home and Pro version to pick between, > but WTF is > this Media version all about? A precursor to the multiple > confusions of the > upcoming Vista flavors. For a while there was no reason to > upgrade from Win > 2000 Pro, but other than a larger footprint no reason to not use XP. It > turned into a fine OS in time, although I avoid using SP3, especially with > AMD CPUs <g>. Oh, the License Validation scheme still pisses me > off, but is > tolerable only because it is so stable. I still opt to use Win > 2000 Pro if > it is available, just because it is so solid and has a small RAM > footprint... > > 14) Windows 2003 Server is solid, but with the introduction of a 2nd layer > of license fees for the previously "No Additional Charge" for Terminal > Services that now required the Greed Grab 2nd layer of license fees on top > of regular CAL license, it pushed me right into the open arms of Linux! A > real bone headed move by M$ IMHO. Other than that Greed Grab it > is a great > OS, but if Windows is not absolutely required I find Linux superior - > especially for the price one can get Ubuntu Server for. > > 15) Vista, it is back to Windows ME mentality again. We have to get > SOMETHING out there, for M$'s own greedy purposes if nothing else. Hey, > let's just cut out some of the very features we promised, and > folks will buy > into it anyway - cuz we be Microscoff! How could they say no to us now? > Poof, goes up in smoke. It is what drove me into Mac OS X's and Linux's > Open Arms for desktop platform purposes wherever a person did not to > absolutely have to use Windows (Explorer required browser > typically). Thank > goodness for this forcing me to really look at Mac OS X and > Ubuntu Linux, I > am in love with OS'es once again. > > 16) Windows 2008 Server. WTF? What the hell is this all about? Solid > looking OS, but who is it benefiting? Not mankind, not me. Uh, > M$, again, > perhaps? By now Linux is firmly entrenched in my world, and I > have no need > for Server 2008 whatever. Too little, too late, non-sensical release > version. > > 17) Windows 7, the "Hasta La Vista version", perhaps? Is it the OS worth > moving to for folks who need a reason to not hold onto XP? Perhaps. We > will see. For me, it is another reason to not use Vista now. Why bother > migrating to Vista when Win 7 is "just around the corner", in 2011 or 2012 > maybe? Meantime, I will still use Win 2000 wherever I can, and XP if 2000 > is not practical. But, if I can get Mac OS X or Ubuntu Linux into play, > they have become my M$ killer platforms of choice. By there own hand M$ > managed to allow the mongrel hordes to tear into its once mighty > stranglehold. > > > Okay, that is the World According To Gil, at least in my little world. > > > Gil > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com > > [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com]on Behalf Of Michael Madigan > > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 1:07 AM > > To: profoxt...@leafe.com > > Subject: Re: When is an administrator not an administrator? > > > > > > 98 was good > > ME sucked > > XP was good > > Vista sucked > > > > Now it looks like Windows 7 is faster than XP. > > > > > > So do they hire morons for every other O/S? > > > > ************************************************* > > > > > > --- On Fri, 12/12/08, Vince Teachout <tea...@taconic.net> wrote: > > > > > From: Vince Teachout <tea...@taconic.net> > > > Subject: Re: When is an administrator not an administrator? > > > To: "ProFox Email List" <profox@leafe.com> > > > Date: Friday, December 12, 2008, 8:45 PM > > > Michael Madigan wrote: > > > > Yep, I tell my customers to pay the extra 100 bucks to > > > have Dell "downgrade" to XP > > > > > > > Ditto. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > > > Subscription Maintenance: > > > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > > > OT-free version of this list: > > > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > > > Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox > > > This message: > > > http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/494313c6.90...@taconic.net > > > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are > > > the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or > > > medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for > > > those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious. > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/ndbblhfmcdkpegpoiiapkeoebdab....@gilhale.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
