Windows Longhorn and Drive Letters

[pudad]

Drive letters make me feel happy. ARRRRRRGH.

Even Macs still use drive letters... Right?

Nope. OSX is going to address storage volumes as a device name mounted to directory like any other unix-like system. And btw, I don't think NT does drive letters on the inards, it is all just presentation: so that idiot dos and 9x users could figure out what to do. Also, nt is capable of mounting volumes to any directory as ua mentioned.

[pudad]

I don't really use multiple drive letters because every drive I have is either mounted on the root drive or in an array. Mounting volumes has been a part of Windows since NTFS came out in the early 90's.

Thank you!

[pudad]

I just don't get it. Maybe I'm being dense, but I honestly think that Win 2k Pro is the best of the Corporate End-User OS's. If you are a corporation, ya probably don't want MSN Messenger, the Video editor, extended Media Player, fancy themes, etc. Right?

I just don't get it.

I'd agree. I prefer 2k in a lot of ways. 2k3 is also a nice step in the same direction 2k was going in. At where I work, they have a lot of 2k machines, and a good few xp machines (I have one) which are pretty stripped down. No themes, no stupid effects, nothing. I can tollerate that.

[mr_oh_so_ice]

My company is all Windows XP with a few NT4 machines lying around. The XP machines run just fine, and don't have stuff like Messenger installed, they just deploy whatever they want with the OS, XP installs are easily done this way. I am sure Windows 2000 was too, but Windows 2000 is 5 years old now, you can't really expect Microsoft to support it forever. But I do agree that is was such a great OS when it was out, I jumped to it over 98 and never looked back.

[SprySpectre]

That's pretty much how it goes.
Or they could switch to the OSX deployment platform. Force you to upgrade ever year for $130.

But apple doesn't do that exactly. Tiger isn't a necessity these days, just a luxury. Only the mac fanatics seem to think it's necessary. Most applications run just fine on OS 10.x, which released in 2001 IIRC.

[ImaNihilist]

But apple doesn't do that exactly. Tiger isn't a necessity these days, just a luxury. Only the mac fanatics seem to think it's necessary. Most applications run just fine on OS 10.x, which released in 2001 IIRC.

Huh. I was under the impression that things like FinalCut needed 10.4, least that's what it says on the box.

Even the latest version of iLife says 10.3.6 on the box.

[SprySpectre]

iLife will run on 10.2.6, and Final Cut can run on 10.3.9. Yeah, I guess they do it more than I realized. I was under the impression that the more commonly used apps work through 10.x. I guess I never realized that most of the people that have bought these already had 10.2 or higher running. I work at a store that sells computer stuff, including macs & mac software...most of the people I saw were the fanatics, and when I say fanatic it's an understatement. I got yelled at for being out of stock of 10.4 the day it came out...

[ImaNihilist]

iLife will run on 10.2.6, and Final Cut can run on 10.3.9. Yeah, I guess they do it more than I realized. I was under the impression that the more commonly used apps work through 10.x. I guess I never realized that most of the people that have bought these already had 10.2 or higher running. I work at a store that sells computer stuff, including macs & mac software...most of the people I saw were the fanatics, and when I say fanatic it's an understatement. I got yelled at for being out of stock of 10.4 the day it came out...

Lol. See, the only reason for me to have a Mac is to use the latest Apple software. Most of the actually Apple software requires the latest version of the OS to run.

You can probably run non Apple branded software on OSX 10.0 and 10.1. I don't really know as it only says on the box. I don't know if that means it actually won't work on an older version of OSX or not.

[vertices]

No one is continuing to shove new software down anyones throat. If you like Windows 95, then fine, use it. There is nothing wrong with it.

Just because MS says, "Ok, we are done with that, we are not going to devote any more resources towards improving it" doesn't mean you can't still use it. They are simply not going to provide FREE updates to a piece of software.

If you want the newest security updates and features, then buy the newest OS. Get over this already.

Hey BK, you bash MS enough and constantly discuss "corporate issues". Do you even work in the IT industry? Just curious.

[pudad]

Hey Vertecies, I agree with you for the most part. But I don't see why they are going to do that with 2000. Sure the os is about 6 years old, but their isn't a whole lot that sets it apart from xp (as far as running software, and drivers). I mean I think it is fine if they don't add any more noticable features or service packs, but I'd wish they'd just backport the latest security patches to it. There are still lots of 2k workstations and servers out there. At the place I work, almost everyone runs 2000. The newer machines are xp, but it is still almost totally 2000. I actually wouldn't even care if they say (well, your support is over but the security updates for xp should still work on 2000). Now I don't know the specifics of what is gonna happen, but I would be ok with that kind of compromise.

[Bearded Kirklander]

No one is continuing to shove new software down anyones throat. If you like Windows 95, then fine, use it. There is nothing wrong with it.

Just because MS says, "Ok, we are done with that, we are not going to devote any more resources towards improving it" doesn't mean you can't still use it. They are simply not going to provide FREE updates to a piece of software.

By dropping security patch support for older OS's, they are in fact forcing you to upgrade if you want to have security upgrades. Dropping security and patch support for Windows 2000 Pro seems silly. It is an NT level OS with a huge corporate presence. I'm not talking about FEATURES - I'm talking about patches for vulnerabilities.

Also, by pressuring vendors and software makers to drop support for earlier versions, they are putting the damper on maintaining those previous OS's. They don't want software makers to even compile a version that can run on 9x/ME systems. They don't want ATI or anyone else maintaining active driver support for 9x/ME, so they say "We just won't WHQL certify for those OS's any more, nor will we provide any developer resources or support for those seeking assistance in producing items for those OS's"

Hey BK, you bash MS enough and constantly discuss "corporate issues". Do you even work in the IT industry? Just curious.

Well of course I have extensive experience with the IT industry, and have actually worked both directly and in-directly with Microsoft on a number of occassions over the decades.

I like a lot of the products that Microsoft puts out and a lot of the engineers and employees are top notch folks and I've enjoyed working with them. But in terms of their corporate policies, decisions and actions, I have some serious reservations, as do many, many other people out there.

While I can understand Microsoft wanting to drop 9x support in favor of the NT platforms, I think their decision to kick Windows 2000 Pro to the curb is ill-advised and a slap in the face to those corporations that they lobbied so hard to make the switch in the first place. Windows 2000 Pro is worth keeping and supporting, imo, and I think their choice is short-sighted and selfish, frankly.

[ua549]

Hey Vertecies, I agree with you for the most part. But I don't see why they are going to do that with 2000. Sure the os is about 6 years old, but their isn't a whole lot that sets it apart from xp (as far as running software, and drivers). I mean I think it is fine if they don't add any more noticable features or service packs, but I'd wish they'd just backport the latest security patches to it. There are still lots of 2k workstations and servers out there. At the place I work, almost everyone runs 2000. The newer machines are xp, but it is still almost totally 2000. I actually wouldn't even care if they say (well, your support is over but the security updates for xp should still work on 2000). Now I don't know the specifics of what is gonna happen, but I would be ok with that kind of compromise.

When product support ends, Microsoft usually offers an extended support agreement. Microsoft has a very clear policy about support for discontinued products. Many companies stop supporting products when they are discontinued.

[SprySpectre]

Lol. See, the only reason for me to have a Mac is to use the latest Apple software. Most of the actually Apple software requires the latest version of the OS to run.

You can probably run non Apple branded software on OSX 10.0 and 10.1. I don't really know as it only says on the box. I don't know if that means it actually won't work on an older version of OSX or not.

I also realized that I was thinking of hardware too. The apple keyboards and mice and some of the wireless products claim they need 10.3 to work, but they do work on older versions of 10.x (according to some of our mac guys).

[pudad]

When product support ends, Microsoft usually offers an extended support agreement. Microsoft has a very clear policy about support for discontinued products. Many companies stop supporting products when they are discontinued.

I just heard about the new rollout package. So all you need to install is 2k+sp4+rollout and you got it all.

What I think would be good, is even though they drop support, they'll make security patches for xp available to 2000. I just never thought the stuff in xp was that significant. It would make sense if they'd eventually drop xp and 2k in favor of something much more advanced and different (longhorn, whatever), but I just think xp and 2k are so similar that it wouldn't be too much work to just make those patches work on 2k aswell.

[Bearded Kirklander]

It would seem to be a smart move to continue service pack development for Win 2K Pro, which includes functional/compatibility/security updates given that some 40+ percent of corporations still use it heavily, no?

If WinFS comes out just after Longhorn does, is it really that hard to issue a patch so that Windows 2000 Pro is compatible with it / aware of it? Or if someone finds an exploit in DirectX, issue a version that takes care of Windows 2000 Pro as well?

After all, it is based on the same NT core, essentially.