To clarify, W2k is probably pretty reliable now for the desktop, but the
servers have a way to go. In addition to reliability issues, the resources
required to do the same functions on the 2000 products (w2k, office 2K,
access 2K) are much higher than the 97 and 4.0 versions.
MS can't even keep their own sites going:
Now I don't bash MS for a living, just as a hobby. They've been sliding
steadily downhill since the 4.0 release. I provide computer services on MS
and Novell networks for a living. I would not consider putting W2K servers
into production until they are stabilized and still would not do so unless
my client are planning a hardware upgrade as part of the process. We've seen
too many black screens of death with W2K servers. The clients do appear more
stable, but why sacrifice performance in a business environment when you
I've used 4.0 without a crash for years. Why switch? It's faster and does
everything I need.
It will be interesting to see the Unix command-line loving community's
reaction when MS releases their text mode server product. This will
certainly interest the mouse-phobic.
If I want USB for multimedia solutions, I'll probably do it under BeOS. Then
again, I'll probably use firewire. (which should've been in windows instead
of USB from the start.
>>>From: Michelle Walden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>>Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1:10 PM
>>>To: Capesius, Alan; zope
>>>Subject: RE: [Zope] Re: Some help required but no sarcastic comments
>>>this time pleas ee
>>>You could now recommend W2k as a much more stable *than
>>>either 95 or NT4*
>>>alternative that does USB support out of the box.
>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>>>Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:39 PM
>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Subject: [Zope] Re: Some help required but no sarcastic comments this
>>>time pleas ee
>>>I understand people do use Win9x, but I would always recommend NT 4
>>>workstation over 9x unless there is an overpowering need for USB.
>>>I don't use USB myself and have been using NT exclusively on
>>>since 94. When properly configured it is much more stable.
>>>(oops 2000) is a better choice for USB support and about as
>>>stable as 9x.
>>>But, that aside, I'm interested in your desktop uses for
>>>Zope. What sort of
>>>>> From: Toby Dickenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> There are those of us who use Zope in desktop
>>>applications too (yes
>>>>> really), where Win9x is not an unreasonable choice.
>>>>> Toby Dickenson
>>>Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
>>>(Related lists -
>>> http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -