|
Re: Win98 versus 2000, XP, Longhorn, etc.
de Craig 06/21/2006 09:34
Howard Schwartz wrote:
...
> Any opinions whether to perpetually upgrade or when, why and how to
> stop at a particular OS?
>
Howard;
Executive summary...
- Don't stay on pre-ntfs OS' if you can help it
- NTFS-based OS' are good platforms to stabilize on (for ~3-5 years)
- *nix is a great alternative and there's a learning curve
Opinions are like...linux distributions. Everybody's got one! <g>
I'd never recommend win98se or their predecessors. An exception to the
rule: when the old h/w platform will not be upgraded /and/ the operator
is *very* security-savvy. But even then, I'd stress trying a
stripped-down install of win2k or xp or DSLinux first...
I've stopped upgrading my personal MS OS' at Win2k. The lans I support
are a mix of win2k & XP. For my personal OS, I'm scrambling to make the
switch to some flavor of Unix/Linux/BSD before win2k is no longer
supported by MS. Hopefully, after enough experience, I'll switch the
lans over.
OK, that's me. As to your question. If I were to stop upgrading at a
particular MS OS, I'd either stop at win2k or winxp pro. The reasons
for this start with the NTFS kernel.
The NTFS kernel is preemptive & reentrant. These two design features
alone make it far and away more /stable/ and secure than winme or
win98(-se). Another reason is that they are widely distributed
throughout the business world meaning that fresher technologies will be
made to interoperate with them regardless of MS' plans for them.
End-of-lifing (EOL) a product is an Engineering/Marketing necessity but
that doesn't mean businesses will follow (viz nt4.0). This means 3rd
party companies will continue to "support" NTFS long after win2k and XP
are EOL'd.
That's where I'd suggest one would stop upgrading if one were so
inclined. Professionally, btw, I'll have to load, learn and use Vista.
No bitterness here. I look forward to learning how to fly that sumbyatch.
Wrt the /other/ OS's (Unix-Linux-BSD-etc), the newer upgrading paths are
much less painful (apt-get, yast) & more automagic (debian's
implementation of apt-get, synaptic). And *much* more selective than,
say, MS. So...as long as we're talking clients (desktop or laptop), I'm
not sure I see any problem to "perpetually" upgrade the *nix kernel, for
example, and leave everything else alone (eg if there are hardware
limitations). Generally speaking, such an upgrade/update would be
transparent to the user.
Below, I've included a couple of ZDLab papers comparing stability and
performance of Win2k to its predecessors. As well, a feature matrix of
the MS OS'provided by ntfs.com.
hth,
-Craig
Uptime study
doc download
<http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/b/5/db5b2495-d913-46c6-b69d-c5a0c8a78b6f/win2000r.doc>
web page
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/news/zdwindows.asp>
Performance study
doc download
<http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/5/f/75fe094b-984f-4661-8e9b-289f345eb54d/zdlabtst.doc>
web page
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/performance/reports/zdlabs.asp
http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm