From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C2D097.11448EE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   I still have not seen from you a list of all the goals of either of =
these two products.  You can say you provided the goals without actually =
doing so all you want.  It's still hand waving and bullshitting.  Either =
put up or shut up.

Rich

  "Robert Comer"  wrote in message =
news:3e473425{at}w3.nls.net...
  I most certainly did.

  >It all comes down to XP being a consumer targeted OS and NT4 was most
  certainly not.

  That's what I said and meant.

  >All you have to offer is that Windows XP Professional has a superset =
of the
  capabilities of Windows NT Workstation 4.0.

  A superset that compromises its usability for my purposes.

  >   Are you even going to try or shall we all accept that you were =
just
  bullshitting?

  Nope, not going to try any more after this, arguing with you is like =
arguing
  with a rabid pit bull. (all bite and no logic.)

  - Bob Comer



  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e472168{at}w3.nls.net...
     You still have failed to state the goal of either Windows XP =
Professional
  or Windows NT Workstation 4.0.  All you have to offer is that Windows =
XP
  Professional has a superset of the capabilities of Windows NT =
Workstation
  4.0.

     Are you even going to try or shall we all accept that you were just
  bullshitting?

  Rich

  "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
  news:3e471302{at}w3.nls.net...
  Nice dig, but Geo has it partly right, it's what XP is designed to do =
that
  NT4 wasn't -- Product activation, integrated Messenger and WMP (for =
the
  masses, it doesn't mean squat we don't need that at work as a =
vulnerability
  point)  Also XP is somewhat more designed to run games, well, I don't =
need
  that at work and don't need that ability taking up space on my hard =
drives.

  It all comes down to XP being a consumer targeted OS and NT4 was most
  certainly not.

  - Bob Comer


  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e46fccf{at}w3.nls.net...
     I have no doubt that one (only one) goal of Windows XP Home Edition =
was
  to supercede Windows Me on consumer desktops.  Robert though made a =
quite
  broader claim regarding the overall goals and not of this product but
  Windows XP Professional and Windows NT Workstation 4.0.  I'm sure =
Robert
  will clear this up when he tells us all the goals of these two =
products.
  I'm particularly interested in what goals Windows NT Workstation 4.0 =
had
  that Windows XP did not.

  Rich

  "Tony Ingenoso"  wrote in message
  news:3e46ed08{at}w3.nls.net...
  Easy - produce a consumer market acceptable OS so the 9x code base =
could be
  retired.  That there was no corresponding touchy-feely 9x release =
speaks
  volumes.

  W2K was/is perfectly acceptable for the vast majority of business =
uses, but
  didn't have the Mr Rogers neighborhood ambiance of XP to appeal to the
  drooling masses.  With 9x hitting the showers, and apparently no plans =
for a
  strictly business oriented product, a unification product was =
mandatory [I
  don't consider XP pro as being business oriented the way W2K is]
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e46e3cf{at}w3.nls.net...
     Facinating.  Can you spell out these goals clearly?

  Rich


------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C2D097.11448EE0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   I still
have not seen from =
you a list=20
of all the goals of either of these two products.  You can say you
= provided=20
the goals without actually doing so all you want.  It's still hand
= waving=20
and bullshitting.  Either put up or shut up.
 
Rich
 

  "Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  message news:3e473425{at}w3.nls.net...I
= most=20
  certainly did.>It all comes down to XP being a
consumer =
targeted OS=20
  and NT4 was mostcertainly not.That's what I
said and=20
  meant.>All you have to offer is that Windows XP =
Professional has a=20
  superset of thecapabilities of Windows NT Workstation =
4.0.A=20
  superset that compromises its usability for my=20
  purposes.>   Are you even
going to try or shall =
we all=20
  accept that you were justbullshitting?Nope,
not going to =
try any=20
  more after this, arguing with you is like arguingwith a rabid pit =
bull.=20
  (all bite and no logic.)- Bob
Comer"Rich" =
<{at}>=20
  wrote in message news:3e472168{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
  You still have failed to state the goal of either Windows XP=20
  Professionalor Windows NT Workstation 4.0.  All you have to =
offer is=20
  that Windows XPProfessional has a superset of the capabilities of =
Windows=20
  NT Workstation4.0.   Are
you even going to try =
or shall=20
  we all accept that you were =
justbullshitting?Rich"Robert=20
  Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  messagenews:3e471302{at}w3.nls.net...Nice=
 dig,=20
  but Geo has it partly right, it's what XP is designed to do =
thatNT4 wasn't=20
  -- Product activation, integrated Messenger and WMP (for =
themasses, it=20
  doesn't mean squat we don't need that at work as a=20
  vulnerabilitypoint)  Also XP is somewhat more designed to run =
games,=20
  well, I don't needthat at work and don't need that ability taking =
up space=20
  on my hard drives.It all comes down to XP being a consumer =
targeted OS=20
  and NT4 was mostcertainly not.- Bob =
Comer"Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote in message news:3e46fccf{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
  I have no doubt that one (only one) goal of Windows XP Home Edition =
wasto=20
  supercede Windows Me on consumer desktops.  Robert though made a=20
  quitebroader claim regarding the overall goals and not of this =
product=20
  butWindows XP Professional and Windows NT Workstation 4.0.  =
I'm sure=20
  Robertwill clear this up when he tells us all the goals of these =
two=20
  products.I'm particularly interested in what goals Windows NT =
Workstation=20
  4.0 hadthat Windows XP did
not.Rich"Tony Ingenoso" =
<tonyiNOSPAM{at}attglobal.net&g=">mailto:tonyiNOSPAM{at}attglobal.net">tonyiNOSPAM{at}attglobal.net&g=
t;=20
  wrote in messagenews:3e46ed08{at}w3.nls.net...Easy=
 -=20
  produce a consumer market acceptable OS so the 9x code base could=20
  beretired.  That there was no corresponding touchy-feely 9x =
release=20
  speaksvolumes.W2K was/is perfectly
acceptable for the vast =

  majority of business uses, butdidn't have the Mr Rogers =
neighborhood=20
  ambiance of XP to appeal to thedrooling masses.  With 9x =
hitting the=20
  showers, and apparently no plans for astrictly business oriented =
product,=20
  a unification product was mandatory [Idon't consider XP pro as =
being=20
  business oriented the way W2K is]"Rich"
<{at}> wrote in message =
news:3e46e3cf{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
  Facinating.  Can you spell out these goals=20
clearly?Rich

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C2D097.11448EE0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4