From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01B7_01C2D05F.D62CDC90
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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_01B7_01C2D05F.D62CDC90
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   I have no
doubt that one =
(only one)=20
goal of Windows XP Home Edition was to supercede Windows Me on consumer=20
desktops.  Robert though made a quite broader claim regarding the
= overall=20
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=20
the goals of these two products.  I'm particularly interested in =
what goals=20
Windows NT Workstation 4.0 had that 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 message news:3e46ed08{at}w3.nls.net...
  Easy - produce a consumer market =
acceptable OS so=20
  the 9x code base could be retired.  That there was no =
corresponding=20
  touchy-feely 9x release speaks volumes.
   
  W2K was/is perfectly acceptable for =
the vast=20
  majority of business uses, but didn't have the Mr Rogers neighborhood =
ambiance=20
  of XP to appeal to the drooling masses.  With 9x hitting the =
showers, and=20
  apparently no plans for a strictly business oriented product, a =
unification=20
  product was mandatory [I don't consider XP pro as being business =
oriented the=20
  way W2K is]
  

    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e46e3cf{at}w3.nls.net...
      
Facinating.  Can =
you spell=20
    out these goals clearly?
     
    Rich
     

------=_NextPart_000_01B7_01C2D05F.D62CDC90--

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