Windows 2000 Early adopter retros

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter in New Zealand
  • Start date Start date
P

Peter in New Zealand

Hi. I've always been an early adopter of new OSs ever since DOS days. As
such I have used Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and finally,
Vista. I have a reasonably well spec'ed desktop, and an elderly laptop
running W98SE. Just got so fed up with unnecessary OS bloat that I
dropped back the desktop to Windows 2000 workstation. To my surprise I
found it does everything I want or need. I run MS Office 2000, and do a
lot of digital photography, so I need to organise and edit lots of image
files. You know, looking at how snappy 2K runs in a Gbyte of RAM really
makes me wonder why I ever went beyond it. Should have done my homework
first. To all W2K users here, thanks for the help and encouragement I
have already gleaned from lurking in this group. I look forward to
enjoying the discussions in the future.
--
Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.
 
"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214080697.404460@ftpsrv1...
> Hi. I've always been an early adopter of new OSs ever since DOS days. As
> such I have used Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and finally,
> Vista. I have a reasonably well spec'ed desktop, and an elderly laptop
> running W98SE. Just got so fed up with unnecessary OS bloat that I
> dropped back the desktop to Windows 2000 workstation. To my surprise I
> found it does everything I want or need. I run MS Office 2000, and do a
> lot of digital photography, so I need to organise and edit lots of image
> files. You know, looking at how snappy 2K runs in a Gbyte of RAM really
> makes me wonder why I ever went beyond it. Should have done my homework
> first. To all W2K users here, thanks for the help and encouragement I
> have already gleaned from lurking in this group. I look forward to
> enjoying the discussions in the future.



yep!

I have quite a few machines here with removable drives and have something
like 22 different operating systems
at my disposal...
My main machine runs Win2k on an AMD-2800 with 1.5 gigs of RAM. Works
great!!!!

I actually have all non-server Windows versions (even Windows 1 and NT3.1)
plus several versions of Linux.
Os/2, BSD, Plan 9 ...on and on...
but Win2k does a great job.
 
"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:uhH5Td%230IHA.4164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1214080697.404460@ftpsrv1...
> > Hi. I've always been an early adopter of new OSs ever since DOS days. As
> > such I have used Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and finally,
> > Vista. I have a reasonably well spec'ed desktop, and an elderly laptop
> > running W98SE. Just got so fed up with unnecessary OS bloat that I
> > dropped back the desktop to Windows 2000 workstation. To my surprise I
> > found it does everything I want or need. I run MS Office 2000, and do a
> > lot of digital photography, so I need to organise and edit lots of image
> > files. You know, looking at how snappy 2K runs in a Gbyte of RAM really
> > makes me wonder why I ever went beyond it. Should have done my homework
> > first. To all W2K users here, thanks for the help and encouragement I
> > have already gleaned from lurking in this group. I look forward to
> > enjoying the discussions in the future.
>
>
>
> yep!
>
> I have quite a few machines here with removable drives and have something
> like 22 different operating systems
> at my disposal...
> My main machine runs Win2k on an AMD-2800 with 1.5 gigs of RAM. Works
> great!!!!
>
> I actually have all non-server Windows versions (even Windows 1 and NT3.1)
> plus several versions of Linux.
> Os/2, BSD, Plan 9 ...on and on...
> but Win2k does a great job.
>
Wow, you really have tried the lot. So a positive comment re W2K coming from
you has a bit of authority behind it I guess. Thanks for that.

--
Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.
 
I too was happy with win2k, but recently had to upgrade my production sys to
winxp in order to utilse certain Bus.software

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214102827.93579@ftpsrv1...
>
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:uhH5Td%230IHA.4164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:1214080697.404460@ftpsrv1...
>> > Hi. I've always been an early adopter of new OSs ever since DOS days.
>> > As
>> > such I have used Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and finally,
>> > Vista. I have a reasonably well spec'ed desktop, and an elderly laptop
>> > running W98SE. Just got so fed up with unnecessary OS bloat that I
>> > dropped back the desktop to Windows 2000 workstation. To my surprise I
>> > found it does everything I want or need. I run MS Office 2000, and do a
>> > lot of digital photography, so I need to organise and edit lots of
>> > image
>> > files. You know, looking at how snappy 2K runs in a Gbyte of RAM really
>> > makes me wonder why I ever went beyond it. Should have done my homework
>> > first. To all W2K users here, thanks for the help and encouragement I
>> > have already gleaned from lurking in this group. I look forward to
>> > enjoying the discussions in the future.
>>
>>
>>
>> yep!
>>
>> I have quite a few machines here with removable drives and have something
>> like 22 different operating systems
>> at my disposal...
>> My main machine runs Win2k on an AMD-2800 with 1.5 gigs of RAM. Works
>> great!!!!
>>
>> I actually have all non-server Windows versions (even Windows 1 and
>> NT3.1)
>> plus several versions of Linux.
>> Os/2, BSD, Plan 9 ...on and on...
>> but Win2k does a great job.
>>
> Wow, you really have tried the lot. So a positive comment re W2K coming
> from
> you has a bit of authority behind it I guess. Thanks for that.
>
> --
> Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
> compulsive computer fiddler.
>
>
 
"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214102827.93579@ftpsrv1...
>
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:uhH5Td%230IHA.4164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:1214080697.404460@ftpsrv1...
> > > Hi. I've always been an early adopter of new OSs ever since DOS days.
As
> > > such I have used Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and finally,
> > > Vista. I have a reasonably well spec'ed desktop, and an elderly laptop
> > > running W98SE. Just got so fed up with unnecessary OS bloat that I
> > > dropped back the desktop to Windows 2000 workstation. To my surprise I
> > > found it does everything I want or need. I run MS Office 2000, and do
a
> > > lot of digital photography, so I need to organise and edit lots of
image
> > > files. You know, looking at how snappy 2K runs in a Gbyte of RAM
really
> > > makes me wonder why I ever went beyond it. Should have done my
homework
> > > first. To all W2K users here, thanks for the help and encouragement I
> > > have already gleaned from lurking in this group. I look forward to
> > > enjoying the discussions in the future.
> >
> >
> >
> > yep!
> >
> > I have quite a few machines here with removable drives and have
something
> > like 22 different operating systems
> > at my disposal...
> > My main machine runs Win2k on an AMD-2800 with 1.5 gigs of RAM. Works
> > great!!!!
> >
> > I actually have all non-server Windows versions (even Windows 1 and
NT3.1)
> > plus several versions of Linux.
> > Os/2, BSD, Plan 9 ...on and on...
> > but Win2k does a great job.
> >
> Wow, you really have tried the lot. So a positive comment re W2K coming
from
> you has a bit of authority behind it I guess. Thanks for that.
>


I am no expert, simply an experimenter...and one who refuses to get caught
in the upgrade game.
All my machines are built from other people's discards.
My friends know that whenever they upgrade, I will buy whatever old stuff
they have.
I don't have to pay much at all for the surplus parts.

The real test came last year when I had a few major projects that required
me to use Publisher
and also to create a video.

Though I had quite a few machines and operating systems at my disposal...I
did not have to think
for more than a second or so...as I went right to my Win2k machine.
Not knocking XP of course, but since Win2k uses less resources...and since
all my applications run on Win2k...
that was my choice.

BTW: My Publisher document ended up being *huge* and though my machine
eventually slowed down toward the end of the project...
Win2k performed flawlessly.

I had also considered using Linux for my projects...but in the real
world...Microsoft software is the standard.
Since I worked at home on my project...but it was final-edited and printed
at an office elsewhere. I had to use the exact version of Publisher
that was being used at the other location. I just wanted to get to work and
have as few distractions as possible...so Win2k came through for me.


Additionally:

I am a Microsoft authorized refurbisher who does volunteer work for a
Non-profit organization.
I can refurbish an older machine such as a P-II or P-III and re-license it
with Win2k. The cost of a legal license is only $5 (USD)
Since all the machines are donated, over the past several years I have fixed
up and put back into service *many* discarded machines.
The fixed income members of the organization can purchase a rebuilt machine
for $10 (USD).

So Win2k is still going strong!
 
> So Win2k is still going strong!
>
Brilliant! I applaud your recycling ethic. Yes, W2K is continuing to
prove completely adequate for all my needs. I believe the MS "internal"
name for W2K is NT5.0, and the one for XP is NT5.1, which kind of begs
the question, apart from the eye candy and extra bells and whistles
(nothing wrong with them of course), just what "engine-room" differences
are there between the two?

--
Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.
 
"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214181329.707229@ftpsrv1...
> > So Win2k is still going strong!
> >
> Brilliant! I applaud your recycling ethic. Yes, W2K is continuing to
> prove completely adequate for all my needs. I believe the MS "internal"
> name for W2K is NT5.0, and the one for XP is NT5.1, which kind of begs
> the question, apart from the eye candy and extra bells and whistles
> (nothing wrong with them of course), just what "engine-room" differences
> are there between the two?
>


Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.

When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy
by setting if for best performance.
 
, just what "engine-room" differences
>> are there between the two?
>>
>
>
> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.
>
> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy
> by setting if for best performance.
>
That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of
Windows ever produced.

--
Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.
 
"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...
> , just what "engine-room" differences
> >> are there between the two?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.
> >
> > When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy
> > by setting if for best performance.
> >
> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of
> Windows ever produced.


It may very well be.

But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is good for
low end machines


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs
 
philo wrote:
> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...
>> , just what "engine-room" differences
>>>> are there between the two?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.
>>>
>>> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy
>>> by setting if for best performance.
>>>
>> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of
>> Windows ever produced.
>
>
> It may very well be.
>
> But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is good for
> low end machines
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs
>
>
Fascinating - I didn't know about that. Now how about a legacy version
of Vista with all the eye candy removed, all the background activity,
and a folder tree structure that is the same as the previous one for
complete backwards compatibility. Hmmmm - sounds like W2K eh. Although I
realise it's not quite that simple. (smile)

--
Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.
 
"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...
> philo wrote:
> > "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...
> >> , just what "engine-room" differences
> >>>> are there between the two?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.
> >>>
> >>> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy
> >>> by setting if for best performance.
> >>>
> >> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of
> >> Windows ever produced.
> >
> >
> > It may very well be.
> >
> > But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is good
for
> > low end machines
> >
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs
> >
> >
> Fascinating - I didn't know about that. Now how about a legacy version
> of Vista with all the eye candy removed, all the background activity,
> and a folder tree structure that is the same as the previous one for
> complete backwards compatibility. Hmmmm - sounds like W2K eh. Although I
> realise it's not quite that simple. (smile)
>
>


I did give Vista a good, three month try out.
It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a Win2k
look...
However to run Vista properly you really need some pretty new hardware...so
I am not going to be using it.
 
philo wrote:
> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...
>> philo wrote:
>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...
>>>> , just what "engine-room" differences
>>>>>> are there between the two?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy
>>>>> by setting if for best performance.
>>>>>
>>>> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of
>>>> Windows ever produced.
>>>
>>> It may very well be.
>>>
>>> But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is good
> for
>>> low end machines
>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs
>>>
>>>
>> Fascinating - I didn't know about that. Now how about a legacy version
>> of Vista with all the eye candy removed, all the background activity,
>> and a folder tree structure that is the same as the previous one for
>> complete backwards compatibility. Hmmmm - sounds like W2K eh. Although I
>> realise it's not quite that simple. (smile)
>>
>>
>
>
> I did give Vista a good, three month try out.
> It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a Win2k
> look...
> However to run Vista properly you really need some pretty new hardware...so
> I am not going to be using it.
>
>
Yea, I kept it on my main machine for almost a year, and, like you,
ended up turning off all the "extra" bits & pieces. Funny thing is I
built the machine expressly for Vista, so the hardware specs were OK for
it. But now it's running W2K, and I personally can't see what advantage
any later OS offers me. It must be really difficult for a software
company when their software reaches a point of maturity where any
further releases run into the law of diminishing returns. I quite like
an idea I saw written about somewhere a few months ago. The idea that MS
need to strip Windows right back to a very basic OS, and then offer
modular "plugins" for added functionality. Then one could purchase the
level of functionality one wanted. The same writer commented that he
suspects Windows has become so massive and monolithic perhaps even MS
don't fully know how it works entirely any more. Certainly it's
difficult to see how their formula of constantly adding in more and more
functionality can work beyond the massive package that Vista is.

--
Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.
 
"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214337523.618768@ftpsrv1...
> philo wrote:
> > "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...
> >> philo wrote:
> >>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> >>> news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...
> >>>> , just what "engine-room" differences
> >>>>>> are there between the two?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy
> >>>>> by setting if for best performance.
> >>>>>
> >>>> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of
> >>>> Windows ever produced.
> >>>
> >>> It may very well be.
> >>>
> >>> But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is
good
> > for
> >>> low end machines
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Fascinating - I didn't know about that. Now how about a legacy version
> >> of Vista with all the eye candy removed, all the background activity,
> >> and a folder tree structure that is the same as the previous one for
> >> complete backwards compatibility. Hmmmm - sounds like W2K eh. Although
I
> >> realise it's not quite that simple. (smile)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I did give Vista a good, three month try out.
> > It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a Win2k
> > look...
> > However to run Vista properly you really need some pretty new
hardware...so
> > I am not going to be using it.
> >
> >
> Yea, I kept it on my main machine for almost a year, and, like you,
> ended up turning off all the "extra" bits & pieces. Funny thing is I
> built the machine expressly for Vista, so the hardware specs were OK for
> it. But now it's running W2K, and I personally can't see what advantage
> any later OS offers me. It must be really difficult for a software
> company when their software reaches a point of maturity where any
> further releases run into the law of diminishing returns. I quite like
> an idea I saw written about somewhere a few months ago. The idea that MS
> need to strip Windows right back to a very basic OS, and then offer
> modular "plugins" for added functionality. Then one could purchase the
> level of functionality one wanted. The same writer commented that he
> suspects Windows has become so massive and monolithic perhaps even MS
> don't fully know how it works entirely any more. Certainly it's
> difficult to see how their formula of constantly adding in more and more
> functionality can work beyond the massive package that Vista is.
>
>

I like the "modular" idea.

Basically just start with Win2k, then add whatever else is needed!
 
philo wrote:
> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1214337523.618768@ftpsrv1...
>> philo wrote:
>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...
>>>> philo wrote:
>>>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...
>>>>>> , just what "engine-room" differences
>>>>>>>> are there between the two?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy
>>>>>>> by setting if for best performance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of
>>>>>> Windows ever produced.
>>>>> It may very well be.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is
> good
>>> for
>>>>> low end machines
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Fascinating - I didn't know about that. Now how about a legacy version
>>>> of Vista with all the eye candy removed, all the background activity,
>>>> and a folder tree structure that is the same as the previous one for
>>>> complete backwards compatibility. Hmmmm - sounds like W2K eh. Although
> I
>>>> realise it's not quite that simple. (smile)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did give Vista a good, three month try out.
>>> It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a Win2k
>>> look...
>>> However to run Vista properly you really need some pretty new
> hardware...so
>>> I am not going to be using it.
>>>
>>>
>> Yea, I kept it on my main machine for almost a year, and, like you,
>> ended up turning off all the "extra" bits & pieces. Funny thing is I
>> built the machine expressly for Vista, so the hardware specs were OK for
>> it. But now it's running W2K, and I personally can't see what advantage
>> any later OS offers me. It must be really difficult for a software
>> company when their software reaches a point of maturity where any
>> further releases run into the law of diminishing returns. I quite like
>> an idea I saw written about somewhere a few months ago. The idea that MS
>> need to strip Windows right back to a very basic OS, and then offer
>> modular "plugins" for added functionality. Then one could purchase the
>> level of functionality one wanted. The same writer commented that he
>> suspects Windows has become so massive and monolithic perhaps even MS
>> don't fully know how it works entirely any more. Certainly it's
>> difficult to see how their formula of constantly adding in more and more
>> functionality can work beyond the massive package that Vista is.
>>
>>
>
> I like the "modular" idea.
>
> Basically just start with Win2k, then add whatever else is needed!
>
>
Love that idea. W2K would make a great basic starting point, but then
perhaps MS's bottom line might start slowing down. I don't mean to beat
the money drum (so many folk seem to), but in the end a philosophy of
continuous growth seems to be the necessary strategy now-a-days. Trouble
is you can't grow indefinitely, so I suppose one day something's gotta
give. Interesting to see if that happens to MS. On the other hand their
OS and software have made the remarkable standardisation we see now
actually possible. Sure would hate to go back to the old days of every
computer manufacturer having his own OS and apps.

--
Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.
 
"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214517994.222436@ftpsrv1...
> philo wrote:
> > "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:1214337523.618768@ftpsrv1...
> >> philo wrote:
> >>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> >>> news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...
> >>>> philo wrote:
> >>>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...
> >>>>>> , just what "engine-room" differences
> >>>>>>>> are there between the two?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy
> >>>>>>> by setting if for best performance.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version
of
> >>>>>> Windows ever produced.
> >>>>> It may very well be.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is
> > good
> >>> for
> >>>>> low end machines
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Fascinating - I didn't know about that. Now how about a legacy
version
> >>>> of Vista with all the eye candy removed, all the background activity,
> >>>> and a folder tree structure that is the same as the previous one for
> >>>> complete backwards compatibility. Hmmmm - sounds like W2K eh.
Although
> > I
> >>>> realise it's not quite that simple. (smile)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I did give Vista a good, three month try out.
> >>> It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a
Win2k
> >>> look...
> >>> However to run Vista properly you really need some pretty new
> > hardware...so
> >>> I am not going to be using it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Yea, I kept it on my main machine for almost a year, and, like you,
> >> ended up turning off all the "extra" bits & pieces. Funny thing is I
> >> built the machine expressly for Vista, so the hardware specs were OK
for
> >> it. But now it's running W2K, and I personally can't see what advantage
> >> any later OS offers me. It must be really difficult for a software
> >> company when their software reaches a point of maturity where any
> >> further releases run into the law of diminishing returns. I quite like
> >> an idea I saw written about somewhere a few months ago. The idea that
MS
> >> need to strip Windows right back to a very basic OS, and then offer
> >> modular "plugins" for added functionality. Then one could purchase the
> >> level of functionality one wanted. The same writer commented that he
> >> suspects Windows has become so massive and monolithic perhaps even MS
> >> don't fully know how it works entirely any more. Certainly it's
> >> difficult to see how their formula of constantly adding in more and
more
> >> functionality can work beyond the massive package that Vista is.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I like the "modular" idea.
> >
> > Basically just start with Win2k, then add whatever else is needed!
> >
> >
> Love that idea. W2K would make a great basic starting point, but then
> perhaps MS's bottom line might start slowing down. I don't mean to beat
> the money drum (so many folk seem to), but in the end a philosophy of
> continuous growth seems to be the necessary strategy now-a-days. Trouble
> is you can't grow indefinitely, so I suppose one day something's gotta
> give. Interesting to see if that happens to MS. On the other hand their
> OS and software have made the remarkable standardisation we see now
> actually possible. Sure would hate to go back to the old days of every
> computer manufacturer having his own OS and apps.
>


Yep.
The world never sits still.
I'm sure Microsoft will be around for a long time...
but for some reason, nothing lasts forever! <G>
 
Back
Top