[AccessD] OT: WinXP Personal

Heenan, Lambert Lambert.Heenan at AIG.com
Wed Jul 9 11:49:30 CDT 2003


Not a lot :-)

What's the difference between "Home version" and "Home release". And NT 4
came out well before Win 98 (July 1996 in fact). 

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Drew Wutka [SMTP:DWUTKA at marlow.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:30 PM
> To:	'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject:	RE: [AccessD] OT: WinXP Personal
> 
> I didn't mean that ME was a 'Home version' of W2k, what I meant was it was
> the Home 'release' for Windows 2000.  It was introduced about the same
> time
> as W2k, just like NT 4.0 and 98.  Yes ME was built on 9x technology, XP
> Home
> is the first 'home' windows version that is actually built on NT
> technology,
> but it is built to emulate 9x functionality.  Make sense?
> 
> Drew
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heenan, Lambert [mailto:Lambert.Heenan at AIG.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:09 AM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD] OT: WinXP Personal
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Millennium edition was just a tweaked version of Win 98. In no
> way
> could you call it a home version of Windows 2000, it has/had none of the
> security features of W2K and the O/S kernel was essentially the same as
> Win
> 98, including the stupid 64k of resources (I believe) that were always
> running out. About the only things the Millennium had in common with W2K
> were it's ability to 'hide' important O/S files and it could run Media
> Player 7.0.
> 
> I agree with the rest of your comments though. XP Pro is the M$ effort to
> keep the revenue coming in. W2K was too stable and people were getting
> stuck
> on it. So push out a new O/S, wait a 'decent' interval before withdrawing
> support for W2K and at the same time introduce 'subscription' licenses.
> There you go - a never ending stream of revenue.
> 
> Lambert
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Drew Wutka [SMTP:DWUTKA at marlow.com]
> > Sent:	Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:54 AM
> > To:	'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> > Subject:	RE: [AccessD] OT: WinXP Personal
> > 
> > Actually, there was a Home version of Windows 2000, it was called
> > MILLENIUM
> > Edition.
> > 
> > Also, Windows XP Pro does have a few features that are nice, but
> comparing
> > Windows 2000 to ANY of it's predecessors, including NT 4.0, and then
> > comparing XP to 2k is like apples and oranges.  2k was a major
> improvement
> > in almost every way.  XP is prettier, and has a few (very few) bonus
> > features.  The boot time on XP is nice, but quite frankly, who cares?  I
> > usually leave my machines on 99% of the time, so during that tiny 1%, 2k
> > usually boots by the time I get a glass of water anyways!
> > 
> > A lot of XP's 'bonus' features are also just features that were
> available
> > with relatively free software packages, such as Winzip, ZoneAlarm, etc.
> > 
> > I'm not saying XP Pro is bad, I'm just saying it is not very impressive
> > compared to it's predecessor.
> > 
> > Also, for your 'example', look at Access.  You have Access, then you
> have
> > the developers addition.  Access is for everyone, including the 'Home'
> > Users.  The developers addition has extra features for the Experts.
> > However, with Windows, you have the Server Edition, then you have 2
> client
> > versions, a normal one, and a stripped down one.  It would be like
> selling
> > an Access version that didn't have report or query capabilities.
> > 
> > Just my 2 cents
> > 
> > Drew
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Haslett, Andrew [mailto:andrew.haslett at ilc.gov.au]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:10 PM
> > To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> > Subject: RE: [AccessD] OT: WinXP Personal
> > 
> > 
> > 1. Never said *you* bought XP Home, nor was referring to you in my
> > comments.
> > 2. Define the *huge* amount of functionality that XP Home doesn't have.
> > 3. You seem to have a lot of knowledge on the product (XP) considering
> you
> > dont use it.
> > 4. The reason Win2k Pro had all those features was because there was no
> > clear distinction in the home/server product lines at that stage.
> > 5. Users who are not smart enought to work out where everything has
> > 'moved'
> > to in XP can change the layout to classic 2K mode.
> > 6. I was referring to other vendors operating systems when comparing
> > features, not Windows.
> > 
> > Just sick of people bagging software to which they either have limited
> > amount of knowledge, have had a bad experience which warps there
> opinions
> > or
> > are simply MS bashers.
> > 
> > The fact remains it is the HOME version of a product. It shouldn't have
> > these features. The web server is a perfect example. The majority of
> users
> > will never use it.  Worse still, some of them might turn it on by
> > accident,
> > opening up a huge number of vulnerabilities.
> > 
> > It would be great to buy the cheapest version of a product and get all
> the
> > features. Unfortunately, we live in the real world and thats not how
> > businesses operate.  If I was the CEO of one of these business I should
> be
> > fired.
> > 
> > (I can't believe my 'middle of the range' Holden Commodore doesn't have
> > SunRoof, Power Windows, Heated Mirrors & Seat Position Memory - the top
> > model does!)
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Andrew
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Colby [mailto:jcolby at colbyconsulting.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 9 July 2003 10:17 AM
> > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> > Subject: RE: [AccessD] OT: WinXP Personal
> > 
> > 
> > Take Win2K Professional, strip out 1/2 the functionality, add "pretty"
> > graphics, move everything around to a different position so it annoys
> the
> > hell out of previous windows users and looks different, and call it XP
> > Home.
> > 
> > I run Win2K Pro on my desktops, and Win2K Server on my server.  I bought
> a
> > Toshiba laptop with Win98 in Ireland (thanks Mark Breen) and IMMEDIATELY
> > fdisked and installed Win2K Pro.  This was November 1997.
> > 
> > Where you get this "most stable version yet I cannot guess.  And what,
> > pray
> > tell, is this "amazing functionality"?  Win2K is ROCK SOLID.  The only
> > time
> > I reboot is when I download bug fixes that require reboots.
> > 
> > I didn't pay for the "extra features" with Win2K Pro.  M$ stripped a
> huge
> > amount of functionality out when they created "Home".  You end up with
> the
> > Win98 of the XP line - "sucky software for the ignorant".  If that is
> what
> > you want, by all means buy it.
> > 
> > Or just continue using Win2K?
> > 
> > And I did NOT buy XP Home (and never will, thank you), and am not now
> > complaining that I can't develop web pages on it.  I am simply pointing
> > out
> > YET ANOTHER piece of missing functionality, in case some misguided
> person
> > should be contemplating their navel and trying to decide whether to buy
> XP
> > Home.  DON'T DO IT!  JUST SAY NO!  ETC.  ETC.
> > 
> > John W. Colby
> > www.colbyconsulting.com
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Haslett,
> > Andrew
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:06 PM
> > To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> > Subject: RE: [AccessD] OT: WinXP Personal
> > 
> > 
> > CASSINI is the web server included with the matrix.
> > 
> > I don't see why people are bagging XP Home.  Why should it include all
> the
> > features of XP Pro.. Thats why its called PRO!!
> > 
> > Its a product designed for the average 'HOME' user of which most would
> > never
> > need to develop web pages.  You can't base a product line on a majority.
> > 
> > If people want extra features - pay for it!  Its up to users to 'review'
> a
> > products features *before* buying it, so I've got no sympathy for people
> > who
> > have purchased HOME and now complain about not having a web server.
> > 
> > XP is the most stable version yet (barring Win2003) and has amazing
> > functionality compared to the other 'operating systems' available, yet
> it
> > receives much criticism of which *most* is undeserved.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Andrew
> > ** comfortably sitting on the optimistic side of pessimism **  :=)
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > AccessD mailing list
> > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> > 
> > IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ ******************** 
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may 
> > contain information protected by law from disclosure. 
> > If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender 
> > immediately and delete this email from your system. 
> > No warranty is given that this email or files, if attached to this 
> > email, are free from computer viruses or other defects. They 
> > are provided on the basis the user assumes all responsibility for 
> > loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from 
> > their use, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not.
> > _______________________________________________
> > AccessD mailing list
> > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > AccessD mailing list
> > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com


More information about the AccessD mailing list