Re: Breadbox Ensemble Petition - GEOS

This is a discussion on Re: Breadbox Ensemble Petition - GEOS ; Is this information ever handed over to any ordinary Windows user? I would say NO. You and I know very well allt his or part of this, but we can't be seen as ordinary users, more as techno idiots ;-), ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Re: Breadbox Ensemble Petition

  1. Re: Breadbox Ensemble Petition

    Is this information ever handed over to any ordinary Windows user? I would
    say NO. You and I know very well allt his or part of this, but we can't be
    seen as ordinary users, more as techno idiots ;-), sometimes knowing too
    much to be sound.......
    My view is that if any user is doing more than just sharing folders and
    printers in a workgroup or connecting to an ISP, I would consider XP Home
    as a no buy, as it is a downgrade compared to prior versions. I think this
    is quite simple, if I would buy a product that is marketed as an upgrade
    I would expect the same or better functionality as in the previous product.
    Is this the case? I would say nope!

    If you expect the same or better network support, buy XP pro.

    Simple as that!

    Case closed!

    BR,
    Hans



    Pat wrote:
    > Hans,
    >
    > Back when Windows 98 and Windows NT were the two prime flavors to choose
    > from, Microsoft threw in a lite-weight web server called PWS (Personal

    Web
    > Server). Because it was very limited, and not very scaleable, Microsoft
    > never officially supported it when Windows ME came out. With Windows XP

    Home
    > Edition, as the successor to Windows ME, its also not available. However,
    > Windows XP Home Edition has most of the kernel code that is in Windows

    2000
    > and XP Pro, minus stuff like multiprocessor support . Despite that, you
    > could run server software on XP Home, if had to. Search the Internet for
    > ways to get IIS to run on XP Home, if you had a copy lying around the
    > office. In addition, there are third party software that would run, like
    > Apache Server. Most Home users do their web services via their ISP. Some
    > people have added a web service at home, only to find out they lack the
    > upload speed due to the asynchronous nature of their ADSL or Cable service.
    > An upload to a home system, is a download to your client.
    >
    > The key areas where Windows XP Home is behind the curve, compared to Windows
    > XP Pro, is in Networking Remote Access, Remote Administration, and support
    > for certain protocols, like Netware and even NetBeui is gone, but its
    > available on CD. In addition, XP Home does file sharing closer to how
    > Windows 98 works, and lacks the user restricted access options in XP Pro.
    > Guess what? If you are a HOME USER, the odds are you don't need XP Pro.

    If
    > you do, then you are an exception, for a home user. In that case, use
    > Windows XP Pro or Server 2003.
    >
    > Personally, I think Windows XP Home, XP Pro, and 2000 Pro, blow the socks
    > off of Windows 9x/ME. There are thousands of things in XP Home, for example,
    > that could never be implemented in that older platform. The kernel that

    XP
    > uses is infinitely superior and more refined. If you listed all the things
    > that XP Home lacked compared to Windows 98, it would be minor compared

    to
    > the flip side of that coin. If you are going to use a Microsoft OS, and

    I
    > think that is specifically where you and the other GEOS zealots use most

    of
    > the time anyway, then it comes down to what resources you have on your

    PC,
    > and what apps you want to run. After the dust settles, if Windows XP Home
    > Edition is still on that list, then I think IT should be the one you
    > install, unless the XP Pro is within your budget and you can foresee a
    > future need that it can fulfill.
    >
    > In summary, I was primarily discussing XP Home Edition for home users,

    with
    > some exceptions that are in the minority. For a business, the default

    should
    > be XP Pro, as a general rule of thumb. Its not a hard rule because a large
    > business may have a procurement for new PCs that arrive installed with

    XP
    > Home Edition, simply because there just happens to be no requirement for
    > what XP Pro offers in networking and administration.
    >
    > http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...p_home_pro.asp
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p.../choosing2.asp
    >
    > http://www.ucs.ed.ac.uk/usd/scisup/faq/homevspro.html
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Hans Lindgren" wrote in message
    > news:NewsReader.1.0.2003716323201425760@news1.teli a.com...
    > > Hi, Tom
    > >
    > > OK, I can accept that, but I can give you another view. What will happen
    > > when a home user connected to broadband (anything from DSL to real

    > broadband)
    > > want to do internet abit more than an ordinary user? Put up some kind

    of
    > > webservice, like anykind of webserver? I discussed that at work today

    with
    > > a user. He felt the same way. Sorry, but XP home is a downgrade

    > networkwise
    > > compared to WindowsME, the network support is reminding more of Novell

    > Personal
    > > Netware. Fine for home use, sharing some folders or a printer or surfing
    > > the internet, but when doing something more it will be insufficient,

    even
    > > compared to Windows9x/ME.
    > >
    > > I can also add that XP Home is sold ast the successor to Windows 9x/ME,
    > > but what happens when you find that it doesn't do the same things as

    > Windows
    > > 9x/ME, that it is actually poorer. Buy XP Pro!
    > >
    > > BR,
    > > Hans
    > >
    > > Tom Accuosti wrote:
    > > > In news:NewsReader.1.0.20037163037722720@news1.telia. com,
    > > > Hans Lindgren wrote:
    > > > | hyubso wrote:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > | I have a client that
    > > > | made the mistake buying a couple of computers with XP Home. These
    > > > | computers are attached to a SMB network, there are three servers

    on
    > > > | the network, to use three network resources in XP Home they have

    to
    > > > | login four times, one for the computer, one for the printer, one

    for
    > > > | the fileserver and one for the programserver. In Pro there is only
    > > > | one login, as in Windows 95, 98 and Millenium. At first, discovering
    > > > | this, I was convinced that I have made an error, looking back and
    > > > | forth, consulting a colleague. He could not find any error in the
    > > > | setup, and I even consulted our Microsoft MCSE, he just confirmed
    > > > | this behaviour in XP Home. Buy Pro, never buy XP Home when doing
    > > > | networking, was his answer. This makes me wonder what other issues
    > > > | there are, too.
    > > >
    > > > Just my perspective, but what you're describing isn't so much a problem
    > > > with Home as a problem with an office that really didn't buy the correct
    > > > tools for the job. Happens all the time, unfortunately.
    > > >
    > > > Tom
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    >
    >
    >


  2. Re: Breadbox Ensemble Petition

    Hans,

    Some of you have bitched that MS charges you for a Cadillac when all you
    want is an economy car. And here they differentiate the product line by
    charging less for XP HOME, whilst simultaneously offering you a more
    powerful XP Pro version if you need it and what do you do? Right. Bitch and
    moan. Somehow I'm not surprised. There are tons of web sites that discuss
    the differences. You walk into Micro Center and ask the salesman and he
    tells you what the differences are. Is this rocket science?


    "Hans Lindgren" wrote in message
    news:NewsReader.1.0.2003717420344722880@news1.teli a.com...
    > Is this information ever handed over to any ordinary Windows user? I would
    > say NO. You and I know very well allt his or part of this, but we can't be
    > seen as ordinary users, more as techno idiots ;-), sometimes knowing too
    > much to be sound.......
    > My view is that if any user is doing more than just sharing folders and
    > printers in a workgroup or connecting to an ISP, I would consider XP Home
    > as a no buy, as it is a downgrade compared to prior versions. I think this
    > is quite simple, if I would buy a product that is marketed as an upgrade
    > I would expect the same or better functionality as in the previous

    product.
    > Is this the case? I would say nope!
    >
    > If you expect the same or better network support, buy XP pro.
    >
    > Simple as that!
    >
    > Case closed!
    >
    > BR,
    > Hans
    >
    >
    >
    > Pat wrote:
    > > Hans,
    > >
    > > Back when Windows 98 and Windows NT were the two prime flavors to choose
    > > from, Microsoft threw in a lite-weight web server called PWS (Personal

    > Web
    > > Server). Because it was very limited, and not very scaleable, Microsoft
    > > never officially supported it when Windows ME came out. With Windows XP

    > Home
    > > Edition, as the successor to Windows ME, its also not available.

    However,
    > > Windows XP Home Edition has most of the kernel code that is in Windows

    > 2000
    > > and XP Pro, minus stuff like multiprocessor support . Despite that, you
    > > could run server software on XP Home, if had to. Search the Internet for
    > > ways to get IIS to run on XP Home, if you had a copy lying around the
    > > office. In addition, there are third party software that would run, like
    > > Apache Server. Most Home users do their web services via their ISP. Some
    > > people have added a web service at home, only to find out they lack the
    > > upload speed due to the asynchronous nature of their ADSL or Cable

    service.
    > > An upload to a home system, is a download to your client.
    > >
    > > The key areas where Windows XP Home is behind the curve, compared to

    Windows
    > > XP Pro, is in Networking Remote Access, Remote Administration, and

    support
    > > for certain protocols, like Netware and even NetBeui is gone, but its
    > > available on CD. In addition, XP Home does file sharing closer to how
    > > Windows 98 works, and lacks the user restricted access options in XP

    Pro.
    > > Guess what? If you are a HOME USER, the odds are you don't need XP Pro.

    > If
    > > you do, then you are an exception, for a home user. In that case, use
    > > Windows XP Pro or Server 2003.
    > >
    > > Personally, I think Windows XP Home, XP Pro, and 2000 Pro, blow the

    socks
    > > off of Windows 9x/ME. There are thousands of things in XP Home, for

    example,
    > > that could never be implemented in that older platform. The kernel that

    > XP
    > > uses is infinitely superior and more refined. If you listed all the

    things
    > > that XP Home lacked compared to Windows 98, it would be minor compared

    > to
    > > the flip side of that coin. If you are going to use a Microsoft OS, and

    > I
    > > think that is specifically where you and the other GEOS zealots use most

    > of
    > > the time anyway, then it comes down to what resources you have on your

    > PC,
    > > and what apps you want to run. After the dust settles, if Windows XP

    Home
    > > Edition is still on that list, then I think IT should be the one you
    > > install, unless the XP Pro is within your budget and you can foresee a
    > > future need that it can fulfill.
    > >
    > > In summary, I was primarily discussing XP Home Edition for home users,

    > with
    > > some exceptions that are in the minority. For a business, the default

    > should
    > > be XP Pro, as a general rule of thumb. Its not a hard rule because a

    large
    > > business may have a procurement for new PCs that arrive installed with

    > XP
    > > Home Edition, simply because there just happens to be no requirement for
    > > what XP Pro offers in networking and administration.
    > >
    > > http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...p_home_pro.asp
    > >
    > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p.../choosing2.asp
    > >
    > > http://www.ucs.ed.ac.uk/usd/scisup/faq/homevspro.html
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Hans Lindgren" wrote in message
    > > news:NewsReader.1.0.2003716323201425760@news1.teli a.com...
    > > > Hi, Tom
    > > >
    > > > OK, I can accept that, but I can give you another view. What will

    happen
    > > > when a home user connected to broadband (anything from DSL to real

    > > broadband)
    > > > want to do internet abit more than an ordinary user? Put up some kind

    > of
    > > > webservice, like anykind of webserver? I discussed that at work today

    > with
    > > > a user. He felt the same way. Sorry, but XP home is a downgrade

    > > networkwise
    > > > compared to WindowsME, the network support is reminding more of Novell

    > > Personal
    > > > Netware. Fine for home use, sharing some folders or a printer or

    surfing
    > > > the internet, but when doing something more it will be insufficient,

    > even
    > > > compared to Windows9x/ME.
    > > >
    > > > I can also add that XP Home is sold ast the successor to Windows

    9x/ME,
    > > > but what happens when you find that it doesn't do the same things as

    > > Windows
    > > > 9x/ME, that it is actually poorer. Buy XP Pro!
    > > >
    > > > BR,
    > > > Hans
    > > >
    > > > Tom Accuosti wrote:
    > > > > In news:NewsReader.1.0.20037163037722720@news1.telia. com,
    > > > > Hans Lindgren wrote:
    > > > > | hyubso wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > | I have a client that
    > > > > | made the mistake buying a couple of computers with XP Home. These
    > > > > | computers are attached to a SMB network, there are three servers

    > on
    > > > > | the network, to use three network resources in XP Home they have

    > to
    > > > > | login four times, one for the computer, one for the printer, one

    > for
    > > > > | the fileserver and one for the programserver. In Pro there is only
    > > > > | one login, as in Windows 95, 98 and Millenium. At first,

    discovering
    > > > > | this, I was convinced that I have made an error, looking back and
    > > > > | forth, consulting a colleague. He could not find any error in the
    > > > > | setup, and I even consulted our Microsoft MCSE, he just confirmed
    > > > > | this behaviour in XP Home. Buy Pro, never buy XP Home when doing
    > > > > | networking, was his answer. This makes me wonder what other issues
    > > > > | there are, too.
    > > > >
    > > > > Just my perspective, but what you're describing isn't so much a

    problem
    > > > > with Home as a problem with an office that really didn't buy the

    correct
    > > > > tools for the job. Happens all the time, unfortunately.
    > > > >
    > > > > Tom
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >

    > >
    > >
    > >




  3. Re: Breadbox Ensemble Petition

    YES! No consumer should EVER need to actually take the time and learn about
    a product they are going to buy and use. WE'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT!

    "Pat" wrote in message
    news:GzHRa.60133$3o3.3987756@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > Hans,
    >
    > Some of you have bitched that MS charges you for a Cadillac when all you
    > want is an economy car. And here they differentiate the product line by
    > charging less for XP HOME, whilst simultaneously offering you a more
    > powerful XP Pro version if you need it and what do you do? Right. Bitch

    and
    > moan. Somehow I'm not surprised. There are tons of web sites that discuss
    > the differences. You walk into Micro Center and ask the salesman and he
    > tells you what the differences are. Is this rocket science?
    >
    >
    > "Hans Lindgren" wrote in message
    > news:NewsReader.1.0.2003717420344722880@news1.teli a.com...
    > > Is this information ever handed over to any ordinary Windows user? I

    would
    > > say NO. You and I know very well allt his or part of this, but we can't

    be
    > > seen as ordinary users, more as techno idiots ;-), sometimes knowing too
    > > much to be sound.......
    > > My view is that if any user is doing more than just sharing folders and
    > > printers in a workgroup or connecting to an ISP, I would consider XP

    Home
    > > as a no buy, as it is a downgrade compared to prior versions. I think

    this
    > > is quite simple, if I would buy a product that is marketed as an upgrade
    > > I would expect the same or better functionality as in the previous

    > product.
    > > Is this the case? I would say nope!
    > >
    > > If you expect the same or better network support, buy XP pro.
    > >
    > > Simple as that!
    > >
    > > Case closed!
    > >
    > > BR,
    > > Hans
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Pat wrote:
    > > > Hans,
    > > >
    > > > Back when Windows 98 and Windows NT were the two prime flavors to

    choose
    > > > from, Microsoft threw in a lite-weight web server called PWS (Personal

    > > Web
    > > > Server). Because it was very limited, and not very scaleable,

    Microsoft
    > > > never officially supported it when Windows ME came out. With Windows

    XP
    > > Home
    > > > Edition, as the successor to Windows ME, its also not available.

    > However,
    > > > Windows XP Home Edition has most of the kernel code that is in

    Windows
    > > 2000
    > > > and XP Pro, minus stuff like multiprocessor support . Despite that,

    you
    > > > could run server software on XP Home, if had to. Search the Internet

    for
    > > > ways to get IIS to run on XP Home, if you had a copy lying around the
    > > > office. In addition, there are third party software that would run,

    like
    > > > Apache Server. Most Home users do their web services via their ISP.

    Some
    > > > people have added a web service at home, only to find out they lack

    the
    > > > upload speed due to the asynchronous nature of their ADSL or Cable

    > service.
    > > > An upload to a home system, is a download to your client.
    > > >
    > > > The key areas where Windows XP Home is behind the curve, compared to

    > Windows
    > > > XP Pro, is in Networking Remote Access, Remote Administration, and

    > support
    > > > for certain protocols, like Netware and even NetBeui is gone, but its
    > > > available on CD. In addition, XP Home does file sharing closer to how
    > > > Windows 98 works, and lacks the user restricted access options in XP

    > Pro.
    > > > Guess what? If you are a HOME USER, the odds are you don't need XP

    Pro.
    > > If
    > > > you do, then you are an exception, for a home user. In that case, use
    > > > Windows XP Pro or Server 2003.
    > > >
    > > > Personally, I think Windows XP Home, XP Pro, and 2000 Pro, blow the

    > socks
    > > > off of Windows 9x/ME. There are thousands of things in XP Home, for

    > example,
    > > > that could never be implemented in that older platform. The kernel

    that
    > > XP
    > > > uses is infinitely superior and more refined. If you listed all the

    > things
    > > > that XP Home lacked compared to Windows 98, it would be minor compared

    > > to
    > > > the flip side of that coin. If you are going to use a Microsoft OS,

    and
    > > I
    > > > think that is specifically where you and the other GEOS zealots use

    most
    > > of
    > > > the time anyway, then it comes down to what resources you have on your

    > > PC,
    > > > and what apps you want to run. After the dust settles, if Windows XP

    > Home
    > > > Edition is still on that list, then I think IT should be the one you
    > > > install, unless the XP Pro is within your budget and you can foresee a
    > > > future need that it can fulfill.
    > > >
    > > > In summary, I was primarily discussing XP Home Edition for home users,

    > > with
    > > > some exceptions that are in the minority. For a business, the default

    > > should
    > > > be XP Pro, as a general rule of thumb. Its not a hard rule because a

    > large
    > > > business may have a procurement for new PCs that arrive installed with

    > > XP
    > > > Home Edition, simply because there just happens to be no requirement

    for
    > > > what XP Pro offers in networking and administration.
    > > >
    > > > http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...p_home_pro.asp
    > > >
    > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p.../choosing2.asp
    > > >
    > > > http://www.ucs.ed.ac.uk/usd/scisup/faq/homevspro.html
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Hans Lindgren" wrote in message
    > > > news:NewsReader.1.0.2003716323201425760@news1.teli a.com...
    > > > > Hi, Tom
    > > > >
    > > > > OK, I can accept that, but I can give you another view. What will

    > happen
    > > > > when a home user connected to broadband (anything from DSL to real
    > > > broadband)
    > > > > want to do internet abit more than an ordinary user? Put up some

    kind
    > > of
    > > > > webservice, like anykind of webserver? I discussed that at work

    today
    > > with
    > > > > a user. He felt the same way. Sorry, but XP home is a downgrade
    > > > networkwise
    > > > > compared to WindowsME, the network support is reminding more of

    Novell
    > > > Personal
    > > > > Netware. Fine for home use, sharing some folders or a printer or

    > surfing
    > > > > the internet, but when doing something more it will be insufficient,

    > > even
    > > > > compared to Windows9x/ME.
    > > > >
    > > > > I can also add that XP Home is sold ast the successor to Windows

    > 9x/ME,
    > > > > but what happens when you find that it doesn't do the same things as
    > > > Windows
    > > > > 9x/ME, that it is actually poorer. Buy XP Pro!
    > > > >
    > > > > BR,
    > > > > Hans
    > > > >
    > > > > Tom Accuosti wrote:
    > > > > > In news:NewsReader.1.0.20037163037722720@news1.telia. com,
    > > > > > Hans Lindgren wrote:
    > > > > > | hyubso wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > | I have a client that
    > > > > > | made the mistake buying a couple of computers with XP Home.

    These
    > > > > > | computers are attached to a SMB network, there are three servers

    > > on
    > > > > > | the network, to use three network resources in XP Home they have

    > > to
    > > > > > | login four times, one for the computer, one for the printer, one

    > > for
    > > > > > | the fileserver and one for the programserver. In Pro there is

    only
    > > > > > | one login, as in Windows 95, 98 and Millenium. At first,

    > discovering
    > > > > > | this, I was convinced that I have made an error, looking back

    and
    > > > > > | forth, consulting a colleague. He could not find any error in

    the
    > > > > > | setup, and I even consulted our Microsoft MCSE, he just

    confirmed
    > > > > > | this behaviour in XP Home. Buy Pro, never buy XP Home when doing
    > > > > > | networking, was his answer. This makes me wonder what other

    issues
    > > > > > | there are, too.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Just my perspective, but what you're describing isn't so much a

    > problem
    > > > > > with Home as a problem with an office that really didn't buy the

    > correct
    > > > > > tools for the job. Happens all the time, unfortunately.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Tom
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    >
    >




  4. Re: Breadbox Ensemble Petition

    Then they get what they deserve. No consumer should ever buy anything 1st,
    and then learn about it later. If they do then....tuff doo-doo for them.
    They have nothing to complain about.

    "hyubso" wrote in message
    news:3F175C87.7060405@prodigy.net...
    > that is because computer purchasers buy first and learn afterwards.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Bob wrote:
    > > YES! No consumer should EVER need to actually take the time and learn

    about
    > > a product they are going to buy and use. WE'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT!
    > >

    >




+ Reply to Thread