On 27 Jul 2005 at 22:54, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > At 10:34 PM 7/27/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote: > >Well, the cost of a Windows upgrade is going to be less than $200. To > > me, the instability and increasing incompatibility issues would not > >be worth that. > > Five machines. That's a lot of upgrades. And because I'm my own > in-house tech support, they all have to be identical operating systems > in order for me to stay sane. Once it's time to move up, it's gonna > happen for all of them.
Well, that's an artificial requirement. Win2K plays very well with Win98 in a peer-to-peer network, and it's easy to learn. Yes, the networking is quite different, but it's actually substantially easier to work with (e.g., no reboot for just changing, say, your IP address, or your TCP/IP settings). > Right now the priority is a laptop for my October concert tour, and > I'll have to ignore the differences and figure out the compatibility a > few months later. Maybe then it will mean saving those pennies again > for an OS upgrade instead of the next versions of my sound software. > Not a pretty thought. > > >Win2K3 Server would cost more, of course, and would probably be > >overkill as a workstation OS, but it sure is a really nice version of > > Windows. It's also the most secure by default of any Windows version > > ever released > > That's not an issue for me. My system is double-firewalled and doesn't > even show up on the public network unless I initiate a connection, and > I run all maintenance of my Unix server at Pair Networks via SSH. Security threats can get through your firewall, via email, no matter how up-to-date your AV software is. > >If you were a performing musician, you'd probably spend a lot more > >money on your instruments than on your car, but you certainly > >wouldn't want to end up in a situation where you missed gigs because > >your car broke down. > > The car analogy is what breaks down. :) The only thing that's 'broken' > is the software writers who keep going with the Mac/rosoft marketing > flows and dropping support for adequately functioning systems or > writing the software poorly for them (such as allowing the FinWin2K5 > memory leak because apparently Win2K/XP clean the mess up for them). Well, Win98 is based on technology developed in the mid-90s (it's a minor upgrade to the original Win95, which was a major new version of Windows). Lots and lots of important things have been introduced to the NT versions of Windows that make it much more pleasant to work with and administer. It just doesn't crash, ever. You're really missing out on the joy of running a decent version of Windows that doesn't require constant care to keep it from crapping out. Also, there's a lot of remote administration that can be done with Win2K, so that you could control those other machines from a central machine, rather than having to get around the house to sit at each PC. > >At some point, you've got to spend the money on > >infrastructure -- there's no getting 'round that fact. > > Someone *else's* infrastructure. I haven't worn this one out! I think many people vastly underrate the value of productivity enhancements that come from upgrading to newer software. Of course, if I'd been advising you, you never would have bought a single PC with Win98 -- you'd have held out until you could move to NT. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
