i think that microsoft sould call it "windowes whistler 2002"
and i think that the name "windowes codename whistler" sux cuz the "codename" iz sucks or somthing
----(by net cat)---

The fact is that Windows 2000 professional was just too good. Now the giant from Redmond has to screw up everything, just so that everybody has to buy some new stuff they don't need. Who needs 64bit? Who needs faster than 1.7GHz? Who needs more than 1.5GB ram? At some point, the uncle Billy has to recognize to stick with the 80 Billion he has, and not to try to earn 80 more by screwing with the customers. XP simply sucks. It is a step backwards in comparison with Windows 2000 pro, and that's why MS is looking into continuing the XP as a ME update, and introduce 2002 as a 2000 update... Killing NT off, no more updates, that is, is logical. At some point there is no point. If people are not going to update, they are not going to update, no matter what the name of the OS is. And Win2k is NT5 anyway...

You should try to use your head before writing a comment. What you say is total bulls***.

Using that ingenious logic maybe Microsoft should have stopped at Windows NT...who needed anything better at the time?...or maybe they should have stopped at 3.1...who needed anything better at the time?...

And maybe intel should have stopped at the 386, with 2 meg of ram...i mean who would ever need anything better???

i agree...
i have not seen any major changes in the computer industry in the last 3 years like the changes from p1 to p2. P3s are simply fast enough for anybody who wants power. I'm still using my p3 450, no problems what-so-ever. Who needs 1.5ghz ? or >1.5gb ram... who needs > 1.0gb ram??? certianly not me, and probably not you, unless you're running a terminal server that supports up to 100 users logged in simultaniously. And for all you people arguing why didn't they just stop at 386s? hmm... cuz when you used a 386 it was still slow.. but it was as fast as it gets..
remember the good old days of 486s? how slow were they back in the day? yes they were pretty slow... and now, they are still slow.
now take a p 233mmx with 64mb and a 4mb video card, how slow was it back then? a bit slow, how slow is it now? still a bit slow. Keep in mind that not EVERYBODY uses thier computer to preform powerful graphics or sound stuff.

people come on, use your minds.
I think win2000 is great, and i do not expect an updated os (espically not one as fast as win 2002). Us system administrators aren't interested in pretty graphics with complicated user settings, and lack of network protocols! (yea i know there is a hack, but whatever) How long was nt4 around before win2k?
that's all i have to say..

~DaNi~

I thing that Microsoft should keep the whistler title, i think the codenames are much better then a number, memphis was better then 98 chargio was better then 95 etc.

Windows NT 6.0 would sound better as people still refer to NT and exclude 2000 from that saying its a diffrent OS.

What ever Microsoft call it, you can bet that all other software companies will copy

Chargio? I hope you were trying to spell Chicago.

Btw, It's NT5.1, not NT6. NT6 will most likely be Blackcomb.

Money!

Microsoft will want to keep the year number in its OS names as this means the names have built in obselescence. People always want new models of cars etc, which are usually longer and wider (OSs are no different), so why change a winning formula.

Interesting stuff guys..... I think Microsoft is doing fine and will continue. I do not like everthing they do. We had a meeting at Maxtor here and got the gold of Office XP and Beta WinXP. The OS works well. However, there are a lot of bugs in the OFFICE. Here is a funny thing that happened. We had a meeting with some microsoft reps for OFFICE XP. And the first thing they asked us was "does anyone know what XP stands for?" I raised my hand and shouted out "Xtra Problems" Everyone laughed....I just thought I would share that with all you guys. Don't get me wrong....I'll take my mouse and icons over command lines anyday :)

Laters

Given that Microsoft has tons of moolah to burn, it is logical to assume that the company is buying EXTREMELY high quality weed for the good folks in its marketing department. Hence, the birth of the name "Windows 2002", parallel to the XP line of OSs. It was one cloudy day in Redmond... Sniff up folks.

weird thing is though office uses the xp naming system the individual components(word, excel, ect...) use the year naming system. wtf is up with that? i say pick one and stick with it for all products. the year system is good cuz it would be convienent for products like encarta which are released every year.

Look if a OS was better than the previous one it would do the following:
be smaller in size
be faster but more stable
be cheaper to purchase
upgrade easly
incluse more worthwhile tasks better
be more compatible with other platforms, not less
lessin the need to upgrade hardware as it would be optimized better.
Does XP do any of these things? NO NO NO

If you buy XP and want it to run as well as NT4 on a pIII 450 with 128, you will be very mistaken.
With XP you need.. a faster CPU, more ram, bigger HD "again", better videocard, new software and more $$ to buy it - how is that better?
and it still does not do annything better or faster

You can think whatever you want, but WindowsXP WILL kill every operating system out there. Its the best operating system I have ever ran, and the most stable even in beta.

"be smaller in size
be faster but more stable
be cheaper to purchase
upgrade easly
incluse more worthwhile tasks better
be more compatible with other platforms, not less
lessin the need to upgrade hardware as it would be optimized better. "

Well you've never programmed anything in you life then! Wow, don't you think that if it was so easy to put new features into an OS, have it support new technologies, as well as be backwards compatible and compatible with other platforms as you say......all the while making sure that it decreases in size......wouldn't everyone be doing it?

I'm not sure where you got the equation "more features = smaller size" from...

I completly agree with gob_gob...
It is actually possible to include more features and quicker/better performance in smaller code.
All it takes is good coders.
Take a look at Nullsofts Developers Network.
There you can follow the "evolution" of WinAmp 3.
Nullsoft has included more features, better soundquality and better performance in lesser code. WA3 is currently alpha, but the size is decreasing in every release and the performace is getting better all the time.
I know, it's a very big difference in creating a media-player and an OS, but if the coders were good...
(I say no more)

Hmmm... my build of 2465 Pro only takes up 709mb, as opposed to 1gig for beta2, I'd say that's a reduction in size.

WinAmp 3....good example....i am currently using/testing it, quite impressed with what they have been able to achieve. However if I were to name a company whom I believe has some of the best programmers it would have been NuMega (makers of SoftIce, BoundsChecker, SmartCheck etc just to name a few). However back to your example...

- smaller in size...at the moment v3 is bigger than v2 but let's not argue about such a small difference.
- faster but more stable...not for the moment but then again it's still alpha...so we can't say for the time being.
- cheaper....well it's free can't really get any cheaper!
- upgrade easily...well it's more of a replace than an upgrade.
- more compatible...not sure if it's any more compatible!
- lessen the need to upgrade hardware....fails here...you need a far more powerful system to play mp3's, especially if you use a full-on skin like boxor.
- backwards compatible...well it still plays mp3s!...but it doesn't support winamp v2 skins...and I'm not 100% sure but I doubt it is compatible with any v2 plugins.

Therefore yes, with better coders you can achieve some of these points, maybe even all of them. However there is a limit to how much you can optimize something. If great coders initially wrote something, it is not possible to extend the functionality by X and still keep the size down etc etc. You can't put more in and expect the overall size to be smaller (unless the original version was overbloated of course).

Look what i have created - a war of words eh! Pffft. If you think winXP is faster that win2k or NT4, try running 3dmax and AutoCAD 2000i and rendering a 260mb file, and see how you go. I'm not wanting to comment to you ppl who only use winamp and burn cd's and surf the web all day trying to maximize your system performance, try using "real world" apps in a envoroment that you have to be productive in, not some silly little hideaway at home where you are on irc all day talking about who's puter is faster booting or ripping a cd - you are lame - "We" the ppl in the workforce who actully use the system for a real reason are the ones who need xtra performance. I don't hear you saying XP is good cause it has less clicks to do a task, or that it's only 200mb in footprint, the realility is...XP is Big, slow and markerting. nothing else. Nt4 was made for the mass cooperate market, XP is not, win2k tried to be better and has some good improvements, but not 700mb worth, do any of you know how much code goes into 1MB ?

read up and get educated.

do any of you know how much code goes into 1MB
------
Let me guess... about 1mb of code, right?

1MB of code.....all depends on what language is used, what compiler and how both of those are used. I'm sure it's trivial to write a 1MB VB program, even more so trivial to write a 1MB VB program that chews up half your ram!

1MB of code.....all depends on what language is used, what compiler and how both of those are used. I'm sure it's trivial to write a 1MB VB program, even more so trivial to write a 1MB VB program that chews up half your ram!

Look what i have created - a war of words eh! Pffft. If you think winXP is faster that win2k, try running 3dmax and AutoCAD 2000i and rendering a 160mb file, and see how you go. I;m not wanting to comment to you ppl who only use winamp and burn cd's and surf the web all day trying to maximize your system performance, try using "real world" apps in a envoroment that you have to be productive in, not some silly little hideaway at home where you are on irc all day talking about who's puter is faster booting or ripping a cd - you are lame - "We" the ppl in the workforce who actully use the system for a real reason are the ones who need xtra performance. I don't hear you saying XP is good cause it has less clicks to do a task, or that it's only 200mb in footprint, the realility is...XP is Big, slow and markerting. nothing else. Nt4 was made for the mass cooperate market, XP is not, win2k tried to be better and has some good improvements, but not 700mb worth, do any of you know how much code goes into 1MB ?

read up and get back to me.

Windows XP is still in beta; you can't fairly run some kind of benchmark on it, compare it to a released OS, and start yapping about how slow it is.

If anyone here can tell me what Windows XP will be able to do for joe blow out there besides pretty gui and more bells and whistles, I'd be glad to hear.

Having tested the hell out of it, there seems to be no compelling reason why a company would shell out money to upgrade and train on it (especially if W2k and NT4 do everything any business could possibly need), and there seems to be no reason why the average customer should feel as though he has to buy this version, especially if he just bought Windows ME (which does suck, but is relatively new).

Someone tell me something really sweet about XP that I couldn't get on my Windows 2000 machine (besides a bit better speed, better support for games, and more bloat?)

I have to agree, I'm running Windows 2000 at home, and with their recent compatability update, there are no old Win9x games that I can't run, and it's as easy as selecting an OS from the Compatability tab that are on shortcuts. XP may have some nice features (i think the best is native CD-RW support) but Windows 2000 is such an improvement over earlier OSes that it doesn't seem worth it to pay for the upgrade.

You are perfectly justified to say xp is not as business oriented and I really think MS knows it. They have tried to make it trimmable to bring it right back to win2kprof level . Still the bugs and their new implementation of ICF . It lacks . I have both and I really prefer 2k
although I am not discounting XPpro once it is final. Heck we havent even gotten to rc1 yet. I sent in some comments that if they are smart they will listen to. I can tell you this about whistler though.
yeah the server product we are talking about. It is sweet and adds some really useful interface to itself and sets up even with a partial face faster than win2kserver. I guess that is why they are going for windows 2002 but if you ask me Whistler should be its name.
I have also grown weary of first saying whistler and then saying xp server. Maybe that is why they are going to this original naming format and now claiming Windows2002 server.
Based on an asus 440bx chipset
coppermine 550
640mb ram
lvd scsi and ultra ATA 100 drives
dual booting between the 2 set up exactly alike and using
my time related bulls*** meter to do the calculations beta2
outperformed win2k server even with a snazzy background but
none of that other crap. classic mode.
Don't get me wrong though , I like my win2k server for now but I will
entertain the idea of the upgrade if reasonable.

And just thin, you can run Win2k2 Server in a headless mode (no UI).

How about benchmarking it with that?

Hi CPU
I am kind of bogged right now as we all get with business but it is pretty noticable that the newer server is moving faster on setup as a DC but then again I have a couple errors popping in win2ksrv with services so they still could be close. The added applications though are enough to move me to upgrade. one being the install and setup of the newer one. It gives better choice for what you want on setup i.e.
app svr , file srv , route conn etc. and the best thing is that even in a split network it seems to get it right the first time. win2k was having issues wanting to set my internal nic before my external nic in
DNS. I am not even finished weeding through some bugs with esent and perflib in win2k yet. I have a groveler issue that appeared after I installed tri-boot with xppro that may be a glitch in accessing different files it sees on the drives, but whistler didnt have any issues. Maybe because I set it up last.
I will try to get some more locked down and eventually get them an even playing field but I am afraid by the time I do I will be upgrading and stripping the drives back because flat out I will have the newer one. It is esentually all that once they get a better hold of these additions to it and you know they will. There will always be
a group out there that will be after the bigger company out of very clear emotional not logical reasoning that only the people who read what they write can see. As always I am still buried in trying to get my mcse and I put that at the head of the class right now because this is the shiznit or whatever the youngsters call it.
Latley I have been monitoring where it goes and what it does with zonealarm and tdimon. I am very impressed and productivity in multitasking "whoa". My message to the rest of the apprehensive is that ram is cheap but I still have yet to really push it anywhere close to half of my 640mb for any length of time.
I guess my only complaint would be that out of my own vanity I would like to see MS move to using winnt for the system folder instead of windows but I am assuming without any knowledge of why that it had to do with new implemntation and structure. Yeah I am shallow about some things too 8^p.
I guess when I get time I might even like compile a binary space partition or something to see just how much I can push it. I still have an old pII 350 I used before when I moved from the p100 days and it reduced a 13 hour compile to 5 minutes and 23 seconds. I bet I can break that record.

errrm, correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be missing the point here. The XP beta that is out there right now is destined for the home user and not the coporate user, hence the reason for this discussion. The server version which is only slated for release next year will be the coprorate version of XP. So quit your yapping until you know what that version will do and stop comparing apples and oranges.

errrm, correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be missing the point here. The XP beta that is out there right now is destined for the home user and not the coporate user, hence the reason for this discussion. The server version which is only slated for release next year will be the coprorate version of XP. So quit your yapping until you know what that version will do and stop comparing apples and oranges.

I feel software naming in general needs to take a different approach. Something that everybody can understand and yet makes since. The year thing is ok, but then you get people that exspect a new OS every year and will be asking 20 questions about. I have Windows 2000. When will 2001 be released? I think a good naming convention would be like Windows 1.0 and then do service packs like was done for NT and of course the service pack would fix a lot of bugs. So then if you install service pack 1. Now you have Windows 1.1 Thats my opinion atleast

That's BeOS's naming convention.

First of all Microsoft used to use that naming setup. There was when there was the old windows series that ended with 3.11 they also did that with NT, which ended with 4. Microsoft changed to 95 when windows evolved and they didn’t do the same for NT until 2000 was released. I rather liked the whole XP scheme because then it would have shown that its all the same OS it’s just customized for different things. Since MS decided to do away with the whole entire 9x kernel they should have done away with the separate naming and just made it one product.

HAvnt posted in so long that I forgot my login name... oh well made a new one. Anyways, this is to CPUguy, Just saying that its such a relief to hear the voice of a level headed sensible person. Most everyone of your comments shows both sides of an issue. Like specificly on this Topic, you talk about not bashing MS but also go say alternatives are good too. Well thers that. Now back to topic. I think That they should stick with NT for the names.. or dates if i have to have a second choice. Just a matter of opinion tho.

.:ELEMENT:.

MSN Explorer is version 6.0 or whatever...isn't this version a 1.0 under this name? Is it because AOL's software is on version 6? It's not because version it's using IE 6.0.

Windows Media Player started out at 6.0 and now up to version 8 in Windows XP. Windows Media Player used to be called Netshow and that was version 3 or 4. (guess they skipped 5) Or if it's the Media Player that played midi, that would make it version 2. The file name is mplayer2.exe isn't it? RealPlayer is version 8. That's their competion on this product.

What about MS Office. What version is Office 97 products? And Office 2000? And now XP? Did they all jump to version 10.0? I didn't think there has been 10 versions of FrontPage out.

Not that I care, but I just think it's all about the marketing of the products. Do consumers want to pick a product with a lower # ?

You realize that this is not unique to Microsoft. Every software company has tweaked their version numbering to some extent for marketing purposes. What would you do in their place? Try to sell Windows NT 5.00.2195? or how about Word 9.0.2270?

Or how about the open-source way of doing things? You can have our latest release build 3.2.1, our latest milestone build 3.2.2 beta 2 or our nightly build 3.x? Like your mom is going to go the local CompUSA and say - "I would like to upgrade to version 4.0.1. I know it is a beta build but I think I will take the risk for the latest enhancements."

WMP came from media player in windows 3.0 or 3.1, hence it started at version 1, wether it had internal versions before 6.0 I'm not sure of. And on a totally seperate point..Real Player? What a hunk of overbloated junk! I think it would be a challange to bloat it up any more!

As for Office...Office 4.3? can't remember the version number to save my life...had versions all over the place...Office 95 was version 7.0, 97 was version 8.0, 2000 was version 9.0 and finally XP which is version 10.0.

before that, Word was at version 6.0, which was v2.0 (Win) and 5.0(Dos), Access was at v2.0, Excel was at v5.0...etc

Hence when it came to making Office 95, MS decided to even out the version numbers on all the products, since Word was at 6.0, all the products became 7.0

And as mhinck pointed out, every company skips numbers....Netscape 5?

Having some ties to some poeple that work for netscape has it perks..espcecially this question...what happened to Netscape 5?
Mozilla, the open source browser, in essance is Netscape 5. Netscape 5 is based off of the netscape 4 code, which is in turn based off of netscape 3, which is in turn based off of netscape 2. Which explains why netscape 4 kinda sucks. And Netscape began to realize the out dated code just wasn't going to cut it against IE. The side steped some already existant Netscape 5 products, open sourced it and moved to netscape 6. Now they could have just called netscape 6 netscape 5...but it was all marketing. Netscape 6.0 sounds better than IE 5.0 in retrospect to the people that really know nothing about computers but use one any how for thier basic IM, e-mai, and porn needs.

--
Spoony

RealPlayer bloated? What about Windows Media Player 7/8? At least you can choose just RealPlayer if you want just streaming audio/video. Then choose if you want their Jukebox product or any other MP3/WMA player/ripper.

Windows Media Player got bloated after version 6. It had to have to add it's Media Guide, tie ins to WindowsMedia.com , WMA encodeing, visualizations and themes.

RealPlayer 8 at least supports all these seperate plugins and formats. Mp3 streaming, Flash 4, SMIL, Liquid Audio, etc. Also, supports the RTSP protocol. Microsoft supports it's own standards it makes up. They are much at fault that people have 2 "Media Players".

It's like a Coke vs Pepsi deal. Except Real has a huge market leadership, no matter how much bundled Windows ME/XP machines are sold, which can't be uninstalled.

The new codecs are great and perfer seeing SMIL and Flash presentations incorporated with streaming media.

Also it's all about the content. Consumers don't care what player it is. Joe Smoe, just wants to see his fav baseball team, NBA game, radio station or movie trailer.

"What about MS Office. What version is Office 97 products? And Office 2000? And now XP? Did they all jump to version 10.0? I didn't think there has been 10 versions of FrontPage out"

Here's a Correction for the above posted comment for the idiot who doesnt seem to know his numbers.

Office 6 (We All Remember That.)
Office 7 (Released as Offfice 95)
Office 8 (Released as Office 97)
Office 9 (Released as Office 2000)

Office 10 (Releasing as OfficeXP/Office 2002)

Get yer info straight. Just because *an* app hasnt had 10 versions doesnt mean anything. Its the *Office Family* that has had 10 Versions. Families Grow. Live With It.

"What about MS Office. What version is Office 97 products? And Office 2000? And now XP? Did they all jump to version 10.0? I didn't think there has been 10 versions of FrontPage out"

Here's a Correction for the above posted comment for the idiot who doesnt seem to know his numbers.

Office 6 (We All Remember That.)
Office 7 (Released as Offfice 95)
Office 8 (Released as Office 97)
Office 9 (Released as Office 2000)

Office 10 (Releasing as OfficeXP/Office 2002)

Get yer info straight. Just because *an* app hasnt had 10 versions doesnt mean anything. Its the *Office Family* that has had 10 Versions. Families Grow. Live With It.

Excuse me, but WMP supports all common (and not so common) compression standards

Why didnt they just make win2k nt5 and be done with it as then the coperate world would have known it was the next NT platform, i still have ppl asking me when nt 5 is coming out! - winXP should be NT6 home and NT6 coperate, not XP anywhere - XP is a waste of a term and $$, M$ need to pull their head in. i think the only reason they took that road was cause MAC have osX - m$ need to foucs on making a smaller faster OS, not bloatware with a 1gig foorprint, i mean is wink 2k that much better than nt4 with ie5 & sp6 installed ? nope! so why is it 700mb bigger?. WinXP is much the same clunky gui (some ppl will be saying it is alsome, but does it make you work better?) thats slow and big in filesize. wizzie graphics don't help you work better, it's not a tool, just a reason for m$ to get you to upgrade - the OS does not do anything more than win2k appart from make you gat a 2ghz cpu and 1ghz ram and a 100gig HD - thanks M$. i thin i'll stick to running nt4 on my 1.2ghz athlon with 512mb ram and flying through everything like it's on steroids!.

Actually, it's NT 5.1

Oh and btw,

You can go right on ahead and do that, we don't give a damn about what you use, you are the one missing out, not us.

m$ need to foucs on making a smaller faster OS, not bloatware with a
1gig foorprint

On my machine, the beta 2 of WinXP boot faster and takes less RAM then my windows 2000 installation.

i mean is wink 2k that much better than nt4 with ie5 & sp6
installed ?

YES it is! Just think about the 'Plug and Play' features. It reconize a lot more hardware then NT4. USB support. MMC integration for system administration. Easy Internet sharing. IP Filtering Firewall. Better support for scanners and cameras. Support for DirectX 7 and 8. Better power management. The list goes on. As a former tech support employee, I prefer troubleshooting a Win2000 machine then a WinNT4 machine.

WinXP is much the same clunky gui (some ppl will be saying it is
alsome, but does it make you work better?) thats slow and big in
filesize. wizzie graphics don't help you work better, it's not a
tool, just a reason for m$ to get you to upgrade.

It is much the same GUI because it already made its proof and because users doesn't want to learn a new GUI anyway. Yes, some new feature in the XP GUI makes me work better. The hiding feature of the systray icons, the group feature of the task bar (I don't need a two row task bar anymore), the mouse-over highlight on buttons and tabs, etc. I also find the new GUI very sexy! :) In addition to the new ComCTL32.dll features and the Stardock WindowBlindsXP that gives us the power to modify the GUI appearance as we want. I think the users wanted GUI enhancements as much as MS.

i think i'll stick to running nt4 on my 1.2ghz athlon with 512mb ram
and flying through everything like it's on steroids!.

XP was running pretty fast on my PIII 450 with 256MB RAM. If you can't run WinXP adequately on your 1.2GHz Athlon, maybe you should consider buying a Pentium?! :)

Look what i have created - a war of words eh! Pffft. If you think winXP is faster that win2k, try running 3dmax and AutoCAD 2000i and rendering a 160mb file, and see how you go. I;m not wanting to comment to you ppl who only use winamp and burn cd's and surf the web all day trying to maximize your system performance, try using "real world" apps in a envoroment that you have to be productive in, not some silly little hideaway at home where you are on irc all day talking about who's puter is faster booting or ripping a cd - you are lame - "We" the ppl in the workforce who actully use the system for a real reason are the ones who need xtra performance. I don't hear you saying XP is good cause it has less clicks to do a task, or that it's only 200mb in footprint, the realility is...XP is Big, slow and markerting. nothing else. Nt4 was made for the mass cooperate market, XP is not, win2k tried to be better and has some good improvements, but not 700mb worth, do any of you know how much code goes into 1MB ?

read up and get back to me.

You Go Boy! :-P

Windows 2002: Home eXPerience
Windows 2002: Professional
Windows 2002: Server
Windows 2002: Advanced Server
Windows 2002: Datacenter Server

Why doesn't Microsoft give me there $100,000,000 marketting budget, or whatever outrageous amount it is, and I'll do their marketting for them. It's not rocket science, heh! I thought they were wiping out the differing names just for such reason as confusion, then to come up with ME, then XP, strange flip back.

To respond to the weeny that posted Windows R.I.P., 3 words "Get a life." Yes, I use Linux, yes I use Windows, no I don't have a closed mind like you seem to have. Windows is stifling in there marketting, just like someone already posted, but their products are good as of late (though I still wonder how long before they come out with Sp2 for win2000 ... they are supposed to be every 6 months generally, and its still beta-cycling like *shrug* near 9 months later.) Otherwise, Windows 2000 is a rock, though some hardware support is shoddy, but like any OS, that's not its fault, I'll b**** at that being a lack of proper 3rd party drivers for certain HP and Kodak peripherals.

Linux has a place, and I hope it expands further into the market, but it needs serious UI and driver support from 3rd party vendors to get there. It will some day, slowly but surely its gaining ground. AMD has its place too, I like AMD, and glad to see that it's release of quality products that compete with Intel on the level has sent Intel scurrying back to the design labs at a renewed vigor. The market isn't completely stifled, and MS doesnt need to be broken up cause as I see it, the DOJ lawsuit has atleast shed light into MS marketting practices and now the government, and consumers are watching. We live in a fickle society, things can change at the drop of a hat. :o)

Ahmen to that, especially that part about HP.

Heh, it took HP over a year to come out with Win2k software for my printer.

Who cares about your HP Printer?

Apparently he does.

Who cares about his printer? He does! And so does every person out there who owns some hardware that is not supported by an OS they use.

HP are irresponsible for not releasing a driver for a popular platform within a reasonable time.

i have always disliked the years thing, and i dislike the XP/ME crap as well. give me a version number every time. so what i would like to see is Office 10, Windows 5 (or 6, maybe even 7 depending on how you count the other releases). you notice they don't go with Internet Explorer XP or 2002...why? because version numbers are better. at this point, i would even settle for Windows.NET 1 and Office.NET 1...just get away from all the other crap.

i completly agree i think it would be alot better if we just had something called Office 10 or Windows 7 or whatever i think it would just be better than using "Windows 2002" or "Windows XP" i mean wut the hell is XP have to do with an OS anyways?

Hopefully they won't change Internet Explorer 6.0 to Internet Explorer XP. :)

Using years makes it easy for people to know what the latest version is etc without having to 'be-in-the-know'. i.e. It is really easy for an average person or computer literate person who just happens not to be following the different version of program X to know that version 2001 is the latest unless 2002 is out. Tell those two people about version 5.0 of program X and they don't have a clue. Tell them it's 5.10.2095.0 and they will be even further lost.

And other than that it's all marketing =) Mind you, why you would want to call it XP after all that just to throw everyone off I'm not sure....maybe there's very good marketing reasons for it.

I think they should have just used Windows 2002 for the whole product line. Consumers really don't give a crap about eXPerience - they want a name that sounds familiar. Now mom and dad are going to be scared to install XP because they're not sure what this mysterious new OS is going to do to their computer.

But since it's too late, the whole line should just be called XP.

I personally am getting tired of "Windows." I mean, everyone knows there are windows in the microsoft operating systems. But windows aren't the only component of the OS. Why is it that the windows get all the attention while other components are ignored?? How sad!
Here are my suggestions for some new, more "inclusive" OS names:

1. Taskbar 2002
2. System Tray XP
3. Icons 2000
4. Left Click Me
5. Scrollbar NT

...and just so those of you handheld users don't feel left out...

6. Dropdown Menu CE

lol.

Windows once referred to the new GUI interface of Win 3.1 and previous. However, now Windows is more of a brand name than having anything to do with actual application windows.

You have to see it for what it is, instead of taking it so literally several years down the road. Take a look at MANY other products that you don't even think about their name and it's meaning -- names that are just so ubiquitous and even possibly before some people's time that their name is just their name. The one you're used to, and know exactly what it is by way of common knowlege and not description.

I totally agree steve347. I have also been puzzled by Microsoft's inability to give full credit to all aspects of its applications and to continue naming schemes one they start them. Take Word for example, fair enough it takes its name from the major component of the application, words. By the same reasoning, surely Excel should be renamed Number, Access should be called Data, Powerpoint called Picture and Project called .... well I guess all great naming schemes break down somewhere.

I think MS should have stuck with the year and add the OS type - eg Windows 2001 Home, Windows 2001 Professional, Windows 2002 Server, Windows 2003 Home etc etc. This shows the year the product was made and where it is supposed to be used.

i suggest they use the xp name. enterprise server customers (and their sysadmins) aren't stupid. they will definitely study into these OS's before buying anything. they're not stupid enough to look at just the name and say, "oh, a new windows, let's buy" or "hey, windows 2002, let's just wait for sp2 or sp3 for windows 2000". microsoft keeps on thinking that it's customers are forever stupid, thinking we won't understand which os is which, and also by installing and creating to many "help" and "message box warnings". stick with the xp name. it shows a sign of consistency with your products.

I think Microsoft should keep the year based naming convention as it is completely logical. If they want to give the desktop version an alias of XP then thats cool, but keep it part of the Windows 2002 product line so that consumers and corporate customers can still identify with the products through-out the Windows 2002 product line.
The key is in Microsoft's marketing campaign.

It does, build 2465 has "version 2002" painted all over the place in small text on the bottom corners of things like the login screen (for Pro users on a domain, that is), the locked computer window, etc...

The only time I see a Windows server is when I spoof the WinXX clients into believing Samba is an NT domain.

What is your point? Do you think you are special because you don't run windows? Trash like you are so ignorant and stupid that it is very perplexing to imagine how somebody as stupid as you thinks.

Better than that! I'm inviting you to take part in our 12 step program for Windows Weenies, to deprogram you from those sick puppies at Microsoft. We remove the brain implant free!

Get a freaken life.

I'm getting so sick and tired of a******s, such as yourself, who make MS out to be this evil company brainwashing everybody. It's getting very old (it was old the first time i heard it), and it's time to stop.

When the truth hurts. Out comes the advocates. I dont dislike MS OS'S. I dislike there company business behaviour (it just flat sucks). Take Intel for example, Nobody ever thought Intel would have any competition worth worrying about,(hence poor R&D and high prices) Until Amd came along and is kicking thier Ass. MS might want to rethink thier stratgy, before they fall prey to the same overconfidence that Intel fell prey to. Windows is not all that and can be replaced, just like Intel.

They won't get away with stifling innovation forever. I just hope they haven't wrecked the whole of computing before the end finally comes.

As to the Windows users, I don't blame them. The vast majority haven't used anything else, and Microsoft products equate to computing. The bugs will be fixed, security holes plugged, speed improved in the next version.

Actually, no. It's time to start. The world needs some alternatives.

Too bad Windows owns linux. It used to be that Windows crashed all the time to use Linux and never have to reboot, oh.. whats that.. this new version of the Windows OS... Windows 2000 you say? This was the death of Linux, now you can run Windows 2000 and its stable as a rock, no crashes. Thats just the start, now XP and Blackcomb are coming, see ya Linux!

Or how about you two turn away from the anything MS does sucks no matter what attitude and actually look at the product.

You are spreading dumba** bulls***, and you are showing that you really can't think for yourself, you are just following the crowd.

No, what we need is a standard, plain and simple.

And with MS' products improving at the rate that they are, it will probably come out to be Windows, which is by far the best system overall. Does it need some improvments, sure, no one is disputing that, but if you can't take your head out of your anti-MS a** and see this, then there is no hope. Do other OS's do certain things better than Windows? Yeah, but they suck at everything else.

Now what would really be nice, since Be Inc. is more than likely going to die this year due to lack of funding, is if MS bought BeOS and incorporated some of the very nice features in it into Windows 6 (Probably Blakcomb), then we would really have an awesome system.

Pardon me for saying this but I think you people are missing the point here. The whole discussion about wether or not MS sucks (or Linux rules for that matter) You all keep blaming MS of being to much in the market and to much in control of it. The one thing I hate about MS, and that's not even MS's fault, is that people keep on buying incomplete software. They are actually buying bugs, it's impossible but it would be nice if everyone would say that MS should first fix ALL the bugs of previous releases, and by fixing I don't mean write a peace of code that deverts from the problem so it actaully fixes the problem while problem is still there (resulting in an oversized OS). And the fact that MS used Linux open source to improve their OS is Ok but at the same time a bit of a weak thing to do, although I wouldn't expect less of MS.
But my conlcusion to all this is , name it what you like it still is and always will be a typical MS product. It's time for MS to change their way of working although that seems inmpossible in this market.
And ppl try not to pay big amounts of money for an OS whitch contain almost more bugs then features (ON RELEASE).
To all your linux lovers out there, stick to the pinguin it will get there ..... some day...

Think about it ppl....

Greetz.

--------------------------------------
To know that you know nothing;
That's the meaning of true knowledge
(Confucius)

LMAO!!! What the hell would replace Microsoft? Linux maybe? that's bulls***, Linux won't replace a s***, in a couple of years it probably won't exist anymore. How companies supports it? 1..2..3... ooppsss that's it. Besides Intel and Microsoft are not the same.

Unreal Tournament rules!!!

maybe they should call it xp so that it will remind everyone
of Linux :) i kinda like xp (wink)

Well I guess you could say that if you could spell Penguin right ? Before you go and start bashing another operating system you should probably learn how to spell properly first. That " might " be a good plan. Now on Linux, first of all at this time Linux has NO desire to take over the market that windows has. Obviously the majority of MS/Windows users have no clue how to manage an operating system such as this. Could you honestly handle that much command line administration? Oh I forgot, command line doesn't give you enough capabilities to manage your system through command prompt. Besides the linux society is geared more towards running robust servers not some John Doe's home computer he dials up to his FreeISP on to subscribe to porn sites on. Linux is a developers operating system. So let us go on to the server side of it. What is the majority of the web servers running on the net right now? Ahhhh that would be the Apache Web Server! The most widely used Web Server on the net today and best of all, it's free!!! You don't have to worry about licensing issues and such and if you don't like something about it, change it they will not mind. In fact if it's a good change you think, they will WANT to hear from you. Let's go to DNS. What is the most widely used DNS server on net today? Ahh that would be BIND ( Berkeley Internet Name Domain) another software that is run on the *nix platform. It amazes me that all you people tear into Linux so much. You make it where the linux community does not need to worry about publicizing it's operating system. Thanks!! We appreciate it!! Every time you talk badly about it, someone who hasn't used it goes to see what it's all about!! So please! Keep on talking badly about the linux operating system! We love it!!!!

Yes, Unreal Tournament rules, and it runs better under Linux than under Win98, WinME, or Win2K. What about WinXP? Oh, it won't run on that, not on WinXP Pro Beta 2 anyway...

Thought I'd give everyone a clue...

Then go away..

damn, that was easy..

Unreal Tournament does run on Beta 2, that is if you're talking about build 2462, it actually runs better than on win 2000. So the conclusion is, Win XP is the best OS, it'll kill all other OS's...and speaking of Linux LOL!!! windows doesn't have to kill it, Linux will die all by itself.
Anyway, some people say it's good to run servers, so leave it there, only lamerz use Linux on a home pc, it's a waste of pc power. kill that damn penguin!!!

Unreal Tournament rules once again !!!!

i can honestly say i can wait for Microsoft Windows XP II

my previous reply (go away) was directed to CPUGuy, and should in no way be taken as I am anti microsoft or anti linux or anti whatever, I represent anti-whining.

I am 100% Microsoft O/S free, but use MS Word/Excel/Internet explorer on linux. MS has some great products, the O/S just isn't one of them.

I'll remember that when you ask me for a dollar on the street because your short sightedness cost you your career. Windows is nothing, so it has market share in "desktop space", that doesn't amount to jack.. Unix was here before Windows, and it will be here long after. Where will I be? Right on top because I support BOTH. Linux will continue to exist as will all of the other Unix Operating Systems. If my wife and kids, friends can use Linux, anyone can. (and they do..) Even friends and relatives that are die hard Windows users are starting to switch.

'nuff said

Very true. They do make some great products. I have no problems admitting that my workstation is a WIN2K box. ( I'm a media junkie and will gladly admit that the best media tools are built for MS and Mac platforms). :)

Excuse me, how did you manage to run Word, Excel, IE and the like on Linux WITHOUT a MS OS?
I mean, if your answer is VMWare or so, you still need a MS OS!

http://www.winehq.com

here: http://www.intergate.cx/linux/linux_IE2.jpg

>I am 100% Microsoft O/S free, but use MS Word/Excel/Internet explorer on linux. MS has some great products, the O/S just isn't one of them.

I would love to see how you are doing this, even Wine's docs recommend using native dll's for alot of this stuff. Does office run with Wine's version of comdlg32 & comctl32? And what version of office did you get this working with?

Drimacus, Are you ummm 10 years old? I find it a terrible thing to gauge an operating system on how good a game runs on it. Anyone else find it hard to believe that a game can determine how good an operating system is?