[rescue] Perverse Question

[Andrew Weiss]

On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 02:41  PM, Robert Novak wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Dave McGuire wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 01:45 PM, Lionel Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> Naw, Win2K is considered by "the group" to be a workable MS OS for 
>>> some
>>> applications, esp. those that will run in no other environment...
>>
>>    Speak for yourself, Lionel.
>
> He speaks for the majority, I suspect. Very few people who have used 
> all
> of the currently available Microsoft operating systems to a substantial
> degree will dispute that Win2k is quite stable and usable. It's almost 
> the
> Linux of Windows operating systems (makes older hardware more usable...
> just not as much older as Linux does).
>
I have much better luck with NT 4 on old hardware (pre 300 Mhz).  2000 
is a lot nicer because it is finally a "real" OS in the sense of 
provided tools that make intuitive sense.  (It is only REAL in that 
sense).  Examples being mmc (completely customizable admin tool 
framework).  Domain controllers that are real domain controllers rather 
than the MS NT 4 definition of a domain (LDAP/vs NetBIOS kludge).  The 
fact that to convert between DC and non-DC doesn't require a reinstall 
of the OS.  The fact that the concept of the forest of domain trees is 
supported.  Many other things as well... it's the first of their 
systems to come with a complete tool chest with the base OS.

Andrew