On 6/11/05, Mr O <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. 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. A little something promising for those of us UNIX people stuck using Windows. _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
