From: James H. E. Maugham (CaptJHEM_at_waterw.com)
Date: Tue Mar 07 2000 - 11:50:50 EST
Eric Cottrell [mailto:ecottrell_at_Doble.com] wrote:
> I get the impression that Microsoft is pulling another marketing ploy here.
> It seems like they are just putting in some improvements and changing
> the name. So the end result are two products, Windows 2000 and Windows
> 2000 Pro.
To the best of my limited knowledge, there's no such thing as "Windows 2000".
You've got two choices with W2K, W2K Professional or W2K Server (and advanced
server), but there's no plain vanilla W2K.
> Looking at the names and the interface it seems like the same underlying
> product with the Pro having additional features like security, ntfs, etc.
> But I get the feeling that Windows 2000, aka Millenium, is still Real Mode
> MSDOS with protective mode extensions and Windows 2000 Pro is still a
> 32 bit protective mode OS with emulation of real mode MSDOS.
Ah, here's the problem! W2K is NOT Windows Millenium. W2K is based on NT and is
NT5! Millenium is the replacement for W98 and is very different than W2K. Rather
than a "marketing ploy" W2K is a _major_ redesign of NT4 and a _much_ more
stable OS. MS has hit one out of the park with W2K. Conversely, my Beta of
Millenium is simply terrible!
If W95 floats your boat, run with it. I've got more than a hundred systems
running W95 quite happily and they'll continue doing so for the foreseeable
future, at least until we start seeing a bunch of Pent. IIs entering the
donation supply chain.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:52 EST