Comments on: “Microsoft could keep XP if customers want it” http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/853/microsoft-could-keep-xp-if-customers-want-it/ The new thing Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:16:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: jeffrey http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/853/microsoft-could-keep-xp-if-customers-want-it/#comment-1286 jeffrey Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:47:40 +0000 http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/853/microsoft-could-keep-xp-if-customers-want-it/#comment-1286 Amazingly, I did in fact run NT (and Windows 2000) on my laptops in the late 90s. Power management was not really my concern; stability was. And a big part of why I needed to run NT on the laptop was because I spent most of my time developing software that was destined to be deployed on NT as well as getting on airplanes to teach classes to developers and doing demonstrations. Amazingly, I did in fact run NT (and Windows 2000) on my laptops in the late 90s. Power management was not really my concern; stability was. And a big part of why I needed to run NT on the laptop was because I spent most of my time developing software that was destined to be deployed on NT as well as getting on airplanes to teach classes to developers and doing demonstrations.

]]> By: Andre Da Costa http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/853/microsoft-could-keep-xp-if-customers-want-it/#comment-1285 Andre Da Costa Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:22:43 +0000 http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/853/microsoft-could-keep-xp-if-customers-want-it/#comment-1285 Contradictions here. When you say you ran NT on your laptop, which version are you referring to NT 4 or NT 5 (2000 Pro). Because as far as I can recall, NT 4 wasn't a suitable OS for laptops back then because of its lack luster power management. Thats one of the reasons why 2000 Pro was toted as such a powerful and worthy successor to NT 4 on the business desktop. So, I think you need to reevaluate if you actually ran Windows NT and if it was better than 98. NT 4 was solid for me on my Zenith GT Workstation we had at home and worked great for a while but lacked a lot of the multimedia functionality we had back in 95, thats why we eventually migrated from it to 98 which offered most of the features of NT except for its reliability. As for your moving from Windows to Mac, you haven't given any indications as to why you did so. I have been running Vista since it RTMed in November of 2006 and I agree, there were hiccups along the way, device drivers and application compatibility, but most of it has been ironed out over time. For instance, I use Mobile Phone Tools to connect my PC to the Internet, it wasn't compatible in January 2007, but my May 2007 with the 4.3.6 it was supported. Vista broke a lot of things, but its a give and take situation, end users craved security and reliability, in addition to more features baked in and thats what they got. I think what frustrated a lot of us was the long drawn out time it took to reach market and the fact that toted features were beginning to drop off or back ported to Windows XP and Server 2003. Over all, I know Vista is more stable and secure than XP or 2000. I haven't reinstalled it since I installed which was the case with pass Windows releases, I am not suffering from XP's bit rot (shows that the low priority defragmenter is working) and Office 2003 is doing well on it. It runs all three of my machines just fine, AMD Sempron (February 2006), Dell Dimension 8300 (March 2004) and Acer laptop (December 2006). Contradictions here. When you say you ran NT on your laptop, which version are you referring to NT 4 or NT 5 (2000 Pro). Because as far as I can recall, NT 4 wasn’t a suitable OS for laptops back then because of its lack luster power management. Thats one of the reasons why 2000 Pro was toted as such a powerful and worthy successor to NT 4 on the business desktop. So, I think you need to reevaluate if you actually ran Windows NT and if it was better than 98. NT 4 was solid for me on my Zenith GT Workstation we had at home and worked great for a while but lacked a lot of the multimedia functionality we had back in 95, thats why we eventually migrated from it to 98 which offered most of the features of NT except for its reliability.

As for your moving from Windows to Mac, you haven’t given any indications as to why you did so. I have been running Vista since it RTMed in November of 2006 and I agree, there were hiccups along the way, device drivers and application compatibility, but most of it has been ironed out over time. For instance, I use Mobile Phone Tools to connect my PC to the Internet, it wasn’t compatible in January 2007, but my May 2007 with the 4.3.6 it was supported.

Vista broke a lot of things, but its a give and take situation, end users craved security and reliability, in addition to more features baked in and thats what they got. I think what frustrated a lot of us was the long drawn out time it took to reach market and the fact that toted features were beginning to drop off or back ported to Windows XP and Server 2003. Over all, I know Vista is more stable and secure than XP or 2000. I haven’t reinstalled it since I installed which was the case with pass Windows releases, I am not suffering from XP’s bit rot (shows that the low priority defragmenter is working) and Office 2003 is doing well on it. It runs all three of my machines just fine, AMD Sempron (February 2006), Dell Dimension 8300 (March 2004) and Acer laptop (December 2006).

]]> By: jeffrey http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/853/microsoft-could-keep-xp-if-customers-want-it/#comment-1279 jeffrey Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:05:02 +0000 http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/853/microsoft-could-keep-xp-if-customers-want-it/#comment-1279 Yeah, I ran NT on my laptop for a while. It was better than Windows 98, that's for sure. The era of virtualization really screws up the calculus for Microsoft. What wouldn't have been possible in 1998 is trivial today. I boot up OS X, spin up a Windows virtual machine (and sometimes a Ubuntu VM as well), and use that to develop and test web sites that are deployed to Ubuntu running on Slicehost or Amazon EC2. Very little if any money is being made by Microsoft for the majority of the stuff I do today. And all the new Microsoft developer stuff -- Silverlight, WCF, Windows Live, even LINQ -- none of it really inspires me. I'd rather spend my time learning more about MySQL and PHP, to be honest. Server 2003 runs splendidly under Parallels on the Mac. I use it for all my work (and last year I started using it for my demos at conferences). I noticed that in 2007 I was the only guy at the VSLive conferences using a Mac; this year maybe 20% of the speakers are using Macs. Yeah, I ran NT on my laptop for a while. It was better than Windows 98, that’s for sure.

The era of virtualization really screws up the calculus for Microsoft. What wouldn’t have been possible in 1998 is trivial today. I boot up OS X, spin up a Windows virtual machine (and sometimes a Ubuntu VM as well), and use that to develop and test web sites that are deployed to Ubuntu running on Slicehost or Amazon EC2. Very little if any money is being made by Microsoft for the majority of the stuff I do today. And all the new Microsoft developer stuff — Silverlight, WCF, Windows Live, even LINQ — none of it really inspires me. I’d rather spend my time learning more about MySQL and PHP, to be honest.

Server 2003 runs splendidly under Parallels on the Mac. I use it for all my work (and last year I started using it for my demos at conferences). I noticed that in 2007 I was the only guy at the VSLive conferences using a Mac; this year maybe 20% of the speakers are using Macs.

]]> By: Mark http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/853/microsoft-could-keep-xp-if-customers-want-it/#comment-1278 Mark Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:57:33 +0000 http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/853/microsoft-could-keep-xp-if-customers-want-it/#comment-1278 After a disastrous foray into Mac land about 12 years ago, I moved to Windows NT and (until recently) never looked back, . Macs were grossly unstable and largely ignored by software authors. The NT platform introduced excellent stability and a world of available software. The landscape had changed: I now own an iPhone (love it) and am considering a Mac for my next laptop. Everyone I know seems to own a Mac. Why do you feel that the iMac is the best desktop machine you've ever owned? How well does Windows Server 2003 run on the virtual machine? After a disastrous foray into Mac land about 12 years ago, I moved to Windows NT and (until recently) never looked back, . Macs were grossly unstable and largely ignored by software authors. The NT platform introduced excellent stability and a world of available software.

The landscape had changed: I now own an iPhone (love it) and am considering a Mac for my next laptop. Everyone I know seems to own a Mac.

Why do you feel that the iMac is the best desktop machine you’ve ever owned? How well does Windows Server 2003 run on the virtual machine?

]]>