[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[New search]
Subject: RE: XP and PS Driver
From: Dov Isaacs <isaacs@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 09:58:50 -0700
Cc: "'Steve Schwedland'" <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, framers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, framers@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <000201c376e8$bcd260a0$b600a8c0@plutonium>
References: <6.0.0.22.2.20030908154435.035507f8@mailsj.corp.adobe.com><000201c376e8$bcd260a0$b600a8c0@plutonium>
Sender: owner-framers@xxxxxxxxx
Actually, you never heard ME recommend Windows 3.x over Windows'95 or Windows NT4 over Windows 2000! We did NOT recommend Windows NT 4 over Windows'9x simply because it was Type 1 font and PostScript brain-dead! But compared to Windows'9x/Me as well as Windows NT 4, Windows 2000 and XP were a tremendous breakthrough in terms of reliability as well as support for Type 1 fonts and PostScript. In terms of Windows XP, compared to Windows 2000 ... Most of the critical updates and fixes made to the internals of Windows XP also were made available to Windows 2000 in the four service packs released to date. Therefore, if you already have Windows 2000, it really doesn't buy you much at all to "upgrade" to Windows XP Pro, unless you really like the eye candy and the ubiquitous reminders to get a Microsoft Passport and buy more Microsoft products. On the other hand, if you need to upgrade a Windows'9x/Me system or get a new system with Windows XP Pro, I certainly would NOT promote going back to Windows 2000! - Dov (NOT a Luddite!) At 9/9/2003 08:40 AM, Moritz Berger wrote: >Dov, > >I've heard that notion ("stick to the old and faithful") over and over >again: >Windows 2000 is worse (slower, less stable) than NT 4 >NT 4 is just a waste of hardware compared to Windows 95 >Windows 95 is inferior to Windows 3.1 (takes much longer to boot, for one >thing) >Windows 3.1 is just eyecandy, better stick to DOS and a multitasking shell >DOS is just a CP/M clone >... > >Do you expect that the logical time to start recommending Windows XP might >arrive when the successor has been around for a couple of years ;-) ? > >Just kidding ... > >Moritz > >P.S.: If you just count the improvements in the 5.1 kernel (without >regarding the new security and management features), there certainly is a >not-so-small gap between Win2k and XP: >http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPKernel/XPKernel.asp > >> -----Original Message----- >> [mailto:owner-framers@omsys.com] On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs >> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:49 AM > >> downgrade -- Windows XP Pro is essentially Windows 2000 with >> an attitude and tollbooth), ** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com ** ** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body. **