home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: xara.net!SoNet!usenet
- From: gns@aladdin.co.uk (Simon)
- Newsgroups: alt.2600,alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc,alt.comp.virus,alt.crackers,alt.cracks,alt.cyberspace,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.wired,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.unixware.misc
- Subject: Re: Will anyone buy NT?? (Yes!)
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 13:54:22 GMT
- Organization: SoNet - The first Internet provider on the south coast
- Message-ID: <4eik5e$65p@news.aladdin.co.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.119.120.84
- X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99b.112
-
- In article <4e8b8k$5ql@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Stauf wrote:
-
-
- >This whole thing is stupid!!! Win95 is not a "stepping Stone to NT"!!!
- >It is WAY PAST it!!! I don't see how anyone that is not on a network
- >can buy NT... That is really stupid!!! Win NT was optimizes for
- >Networks ONLY!!! NOT FOR ANY PCs NOT ON A NETWORK!!!
- >Almost no software runs on NT since it uses 32-bit code. Win 95 is
- >very compatible with all programs since it is a 32-bit OS with 16-bit
- >Code!! For any PC not on a network there is no competition between NT
- >and 95!!! Windows 95 is the obvious choice...
-
-
- What about "NT Workstation ! I'ts hard to reconcile your comments
- with what the press has to say about this system. "Windows NT" is now
- a very attractive operating system to consider, and could easily come
- "the" operating system of choice.
-
- "NT" is sold in two forms; "NT Server" and "NT Workstation". "NT
- Workstation" is designed for use on a PC, and according to the press,
- is so good compared to "Windows 95" that many are going directly to it
- from "Windows 3.11; bypassing "Windows 95 altogether. Of couse this
- applies to those who are able to exercise choice, independently of
- what system may come pre-installed with new desktop PC's.
-
- From what I have read, "NT Workstation has the ability to run both
- "Windows" 16 and 32 bit app's along with "DOS" "OS2" and "Posix".
- All these apparently simultaneously !!!
-
- Practically all popular applications are being re-written or
- re-compiled for 32 bit systems, and there will be no shortage of
- software that will run on "NT". At the moment, I am writing some
- software with the 16 bit "Delphi" development tool. Programs written
- with this, are said to be able to run on both "Windows 95" and
- "Windows NT" as well as "Windows 3.1 / 3.11
-
- "NT Workstation" is optimised for connection to a network, especially
- a network running "NT Server"; but it's quite capable of standing
- entirely by itself . Networking is the way things are going,
- especially with the increasing prominence of the Internet. Before long
- many families will have a central server in their home, serving PC's
- used by children for homework as well as their parents applications.
- This is the reality; it's happening ! The next machine that I buy will
- be a powerful server within my home, that will be permanently
- connected to the Internet for business handling. All individual PC's
- within the house, will be able to access it. It will almost certainly
- be running "NT Server", with "NT Workstation" on the individual PC's.
-
- "Windows NT" can now be considered a stable, powerful operating
- system, which is why it has been chosen for a number of banking
- systems in the US. It can provide various levels of security, and is
- easily understood by "Windows" users.
-
- I am not in any way associated with "Microsoft"; I merely wished to
- respond to what I saw as an unjustifed comment about an operating
- system that doesn't seem to deserve it. Already it has aquired such a
- large share of the network operating system market, that Novel's in
- real trouble. Check it out !
-
- Simon R Bascom
-
- This article is a corrected version of my earlier one, which addressed
- wrongly.
-
-
-
-