Only 3 M$ patches in 2 mths???

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gore
Umm, the requirements I listed were a complete joke....I assumed peopel would see that and get a laugh out of it....Damn you kill the fun in it.

---

-hands you A fun back- (MUD joke)

Quote:

---

a 486, I still need one, I want to set up a few things and play.

---

Don't we all! They make killer wargaming systems.

Quote:

---

thinking you are starting too realise I'm not seriouse....At least I hope so. Windows is great for a desktop, but as for servers, I'm partial to *NIX. And *NIX also makes a great desktop.

---

I agree 100%. I've battled back and forth between installations of different OSes to test which benifits which reasoning the best. Windows has always come out on top for the fastest and best desktop/workstation OS. Need I mention the best gaming support (WineX exists of course, but let's be honest :) ) And while windows can handle a server decently (once configured) a UNIX based OS handles it 10x better. That's been my rule of thumb for a very long time now. Windows for desktops, and UNIX for servers.

Quote:

---

Everyone says how Macs are the greatest at Graphic designs.....Which they obviously have never used UNIX. An SGI running IRIX would OWN a Mac.

---

Well, the latest macs are built off of the UNIX code (BSD?) and thus have the same system capabilities as IRIX. However, I think purchasing a $2,000 computer just because advertisements say photoshop looks better, makes me shiver. Just my opinion, but even as a former web designer Mac would never be able to do what I feel a fully functional workstation/desktop should be using. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
I agree 100%. I've battled back and forth between installations of different OSes to test which benifits which reasoning the best. Windows has always come out on top for the fastest and best desktop/workstation OS. Need I mention the best gaming support (WineX exists of course, but let's be honest :) ) And while windows can handle a server decently (once configured) a UNIX based OS handles it 10x better. That's been my rule of thumb for a very long time now. Windows for desktops, and UNIX for servers.

---

Generally I agree with this completly. I think Linux as a desktop is great and I use it daily, but Windows has them with support for hardware. Windows server 2003 is nice, but still, I'd use *NIX. I play Unreal Tournament, Doom, Quake, and Tux Racer. All of them can be used on Windows OR *NIX, or DOS even, so I don't worry about game support much.

Quote:

---

Well, the latest macs are built off of the UNIX code (BSD?) and thus have the same system capabilities as IRIX. However, I think purchasing a $2,000 computer just because advertisements say photoshop looks better, makes me shiver. Just my opinion, but even as a former web designer Mac would never be able to do what I feel a fully functional workstation/desktop should be using. :)

---

Yup, they are built with BSD at the very base. It's modified but it's BSD.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
The reasoning behind 2000 slow updates is that 2000 is trying to be phased out. It is a 3 year old (4 almost) operating system that need to step aside for the continuing product. Sure, we could start a flame war about which OS is better, but numbers counter, and so do benchmarks. By upgrading to a newer OS, support and patches will be supported much more often.

---

I understand your reasoning, as it matches M$ however I disagree with it. It isn't grounded with reality in the corporate world or the home world. While many corporations DO set the life of their PC desktops to 3 years that doesn't mean they necessarily write a blank check to replace it come end of year 3...not to mention the BUSY I/T shop having time to replace all this hardware. And servers are replaced even less frequently for not just monetary reasons...migration of legacy software can be very hard.

I can tell you from discussions with many corporate I/T types ranging from CIOs to system admins: Microsoft must extend the life of their software (not just OS's)...people are getting fed up with the constant upgrades.

Quote:

---

This would apply to someone running 98 as well. It's time to move foward. MS took no holiday, but is creating longhorn and supporting XP to help surge the users foward towards better, faster, and much more stable operating systems.

---

And the home base is even worse. What AVERAGE (note: average, not us _power users_ ha ha) user upgrades or even replaces their hardware every 3 years? Very very few, would be my guess given many of my non-technical family members with OS's ranging from 95 to ME. Many reasons for this: too costly, dont care, dont know, yada yada yada. There really isn't a good incentive for them to upgrade except maybe to run new software that only runs on the newer OS's. Hey, even Gore (and myself too) has older OS's running.

Hey, I'm not a M$ basher, I like their products...but I'm a I/T person who has to deal with them on a multitude of levels and am one of those tired of the upgrade merry-go-round.

(Thanks for the good dialogue/discussion.)

Oh, poor Microsoft -- will they ever win?

If they dont release enough patches they "dont care"; if they release too many it "speaks of how crap Windows is".

Would everyone be content with 4 patches a month or part thereof?

rico,

I have noticed you are focusing a lot of this on server IT maintanence. While that is fine, my base argument was for OSes and MS patch news in general. If you are worried about expenses, time, and having to upgrade 50+ computers at one time then I suggest a linux based distro. Gentoo or Redhat, of course, Redhat being easy to setup and install while Gentoo takes a bit more to install, but upgrades are newbishly easy. Servers, in my humble opinion, should always be UNIX based for a multitude of reasons.

1. Much cheaper
2. Much easier to upgrade in terms of system critical applications
3. A much more proven history of stability and reliability in terms of server use.

So, while it may seem like I am trying to avoid the origonal question by offering a completely seperate solution, my origonal posts here about MS updates still stand firm. I merely think you would save yourself a ton of sleepless nights in an office/server senario using UNIX. Rule of thumb: Windows for desktops, UNIX for servers :)

Quote:

---

As far as I know XP will be the only one receiving the newer updates, as 2000 is old for it's time. To be blunt, the features, hypthreading, and processing handling in XP has surpassed 2000. It is thus time to move on, and like 98, 2000 will soon be losing support. XP for home use is an excellent choice, and I have run personal benchmarks to test the differences, find XP superior in all of them. Server 2003 for server use, instead of 2000 server, in which I too benchmarked and it surpassed 2000 once again.

---

1) M$ just continue supporting Windows 98 again! I don't remember how much time they said Win98 will end and then, change ship and support is continuing.

2) Windows 2000 should be discontinued in 2007 but don’t except anything before 2009 because Windows 2000 computer don’t run Longhorn. Windows 2000 is still more secure that XP right now and I'm not sure SP2 will change that.

3) IE Patch’s are independent of OS. They can include them in a SP2 but what about Windows 2000?

4) I’m still running over 20 computers with Windows 98 in my company for an overall 66 computer. I don’t have money to buy 20 new computers. Most company doesn’t either.

Gore, I used to maintain a kick ass silicon graphics work beast. Those things fking rocked. Took up a whole room but man that was cool.

Don't like Microsofts IE patch policy? Quit using it. :D <- that too is a joke.

Quote:

---

1) M$ just continue supporting Windows 98 again! I don't remember how much time they said Win98 will end and then, change ship and support is continuing.

---

Unless they continue with the upgrading patches, then it is not supported. Supporting it over the phone does not count.

Quote:

---

2) Windows 2000 should be discontinued in 2007 but don’t except anything before 2009 because Windows 2000 computer don’t run Longhorn. Windows 2000 is still more secure that XP right now and I'm not sure SP2 will change that.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Windows 2000 came with the same default insecure settings as XP, and the same configurations to make it just as secure as XP. In no way, was 2000 any more secure than XP.

Quote:

---

3) IE Patch’s are independent of OS. They can include them in a SP2 but what about Windows 2000?

---

I already answered this in my posts above, please read them.

edit: I even pulled up that specific part for you:

Quote:

---

origonally from pooh sun tzu

As far as I know XP will be the only one receiving the newer updates, as 2000 is old for it's time. To be blunt, the features, hypthreading, and processing handling in XP has surpassed 2000. It is thus time to move on, and like 98, 2000 will soon be losing support. XP for home use is an excellent choice, and I have run personal benchmarks to test the differences, find XP superior in all of them. Server 2003 for server use, instead of 2000 server, in which I too benchmarked and it surpassed 2000 once again.

The reasoning behind 2000 slow updates is that 2000 is trying to be phased out. It is a 3 year old (4 almost) operating system that need to step aside for the continuing product. Sure, we could start a flame war about which OS is better, but numbers counter, and so do benchmarks. By upgrading to a newer OS, support and patches will be supported much more often.

This would apply to someone running 98 as well. It's time to move foward. MS took no holiday, but is creating longhorn and supporting XP to help surge the users foward towards better, faster, and much more stable operating systems.

Once again, I'm not looking to turn this into a "which os is better argument", but like a linux user, they will and should upgrade to RH 9 from RH 6 since 9 has come out.

---

Quote:

---

4) I’m still running over 20 computers with Windows 98 in my company for an overall 66 computer. I don’t have money to buy 20 new computers. Most company doesn’t either.

---

I already answered company situations in my posts above, please read them.

edit: I even pulled up that specific part for you:

Quote:

---

origonally from pooh sun tzu

rico,

I have noticed you are focusing a lot of this on server IT maintanence. While that is fine, my base argument was for OSes and MS patch news in general. If you are worried about expenses, time, and having to upgrade 50+ computers at one time then I suggest a linux based distro. Gentoo or Redhat, of course, Redhat being easy to setup and install while Gentoo takes a bit more to install, but upgrades are newbishly easy. Servers, in my humble opinion, should always be UNIX based for a multitude of reasons.

1. Much cheaper
2. Much easier to upgrade in terms of system critical applications
3. A much more proven history of stability and reliability in terms of server use.

So, while it may seem like I am trying to avoid the origonal question by offering a completely seperate solution, my origonal posts here about MS updates still stand firm. I merely think you would save yourself a ton of sleepless nights in an office/server senario using UNIX. Rule of thumb: Windows for desktops, UNIX for servers

---

Actually, according to my MS OEM SystemBuilder Info, MS is pulling support for Windows 2000 Server, AS and Datacenter Server around August of this year.

P.S. - Sorry, pooh. I forgot to get back with you. I'm gonna PM you with the specs.

Hi,

I answer to ric-o's question. I seem to recall reading that Microsoft have stated that they will concentrate on releasing "service packs" rather than patches and fixes? did anyone else come across that. I believe they said they would only provide patches for major security problems?

Win95 will run on a 386 (12Mb RAM)............I have not tried it on anything less.

I disagree with the comments on Win2000, as 4 years is not "old" in a commercial setting. We are not in a world boom at the moment, and many organisations cannot afford major IT investment in replacing stuff. Win2000 will run on a PI/133 :)

As we have seen in the past few days: MS have backed down over the 9x family. I would expect them to do the same there.

Another consideration is that commercial IT users tend to be cautious, so a lot of Win2000 implementations are nowhere near 4 years old. They will not be pleased if MS try to force change on them..........the problem of legacy software has also been discussed.............up till 2 years ago I was still supporting Lotus 1-2-3 for Dos and Excel2 !!! (Win3.1x)

My personal feeling is that the problem with legacy equipment is not so much the processor as the memory. It was very expensive in those days, and has become so again because it is obsolete. So upgrading isn't really a viable option in a lot of cases?

I also think that legislation will also play its part.............if you sell hardware in Europe you have to support it for 10 years............I can see operating systems being put into the same classification, and MS cannot afford not to do business in Europe ;)

Just my £0.02 worth