which OS is best for gaming?

I'm planning a new gaming PC based on an ASUS A7N8X DLX and a AMD 2600+. Which operating system is best for a gaming PC, Win 98SE or XP? I would think 98 SE would consume less resources. If XP is better, is there any advantages to running XP pro vs XP home? Thanks Tom

I recently upgraded from 98 to XP Pro and am very happy with it. One catch, a lot of people, myself included, have had problems with sound in GPL under XP. There are various workarounds and I found one that works for me, but YMMV. Only other drawback I can think of is that XP video drivers by default are locked at 60 hz refresh rate in 3D mode, but there are many different fixes available for this, so it's not really an issue, just something you should be aware of. Other than that I vastly prefer it to 98 because it is much more reliable and it multitasks better. Games can't crash my PC any more, and I no longer have to kill all my background apps to avoid slow downs. I also now for some reason need considerably less latency correction for the force feedback in Papy sims. Between XP Pro and Home I would recommend Pro because it offers management tools that allow you to permanently turn off all the background processes you don't want. Because it has this ability I think XP Pro can be just as lean as any other Windows OS if you take the time to configure it, with the advantage of the best reliability of any MS OS yet. Another thing to keep in mind is that XP will do a better job of supporting newer hardware. Trying to use 98SE on a new home built PC could mean a lot of scrounging around for device drivers and patches. "Tom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FVmY9.4310$[email hidden]... > I'm planning a new gaming PC based on an ASUS A7N8X DLX and a AMD 2600+. > > Which operating system is best for a gaming PC, Win 98SE or XP? > I would think 98 SE would consume less resources. If XP is better, isthere

Quoted text (8 lines)

> any advantages to running XP pro vs XP home? > > Thanks > Tom > > > >

Haqsau wrote: > Between XP Pro and Home I > would recommend Pro because it offers management tools that allow you to > permanently turn off all the background processes you don't want. Because > it has this ability I think XP Pro can be just as lean as any other Windows > OS if you take the time to configure it, with the advantage of the best > reliability of any MS OS yet. And if you purchase the educational version of XP Pro, it will cost you the same as XP Home (retail price). Just go to Newegg, Staples, etc, and pick up the 'education' version. I purchased mine at Newegg, but most retailers offer the same deal.

For pure gaming 98SE or WinME are probably better because they use less system ressources than XP or 2k. There were a few benchmarks which tried to prove that XP can be faster than 98SE or WinME in certain games, but if I had that game and tried it, I never found those benchmark results confirmed because even if the fps was indicated as being identical in both, in WinME the game was still smoother in certain ways, or looked better. And I know pretty well how to set those OS up, therefor I think I'd set them both up optimally. Achim "Tom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FVmY9.4310$[email hidden]... > I'm planning a new gaming PC based on an ASUS A7N8X DLX and a AMD 2600+. > > Which operating system is best for a gaming PC, Win 98SE or XP? > I would think 98 SE would consume less resources. If XP is better, isthere > any advantages to running XP pro vs XP home?

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 11:31:36 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >For pure gaming 98SE or WinME are probably better because they use less >system ressources than XP or 2k. I'd be willing to argue that actually. Out of the box that's the case, for sure, but you can disable many things in XP that you can't touch in 95/98/ME. I would expect an XP system with all of the non-critical services and TSR's running, using the classic explorer shell with effects/smoothing/etc disabled would use fewer resources than 98 or ME, and it certainly seems that way in practice. Aside from that the resource usage is handled much more efficiently and resources are given back to the system with much more stability. To be truthful the only reason I upgraded to XP was because 98 would refuse to run any directx applications after I put a second stick of 256mb pc133 RAM in my system, even on a clean install of the OS. After using XP for a bit, I would not go back, and I was incredibly skeptical prior to upgrading. Jason

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 02:48:05 GMT, Tom wrote: > I would think 98 SE would consume less resources. If XP is better, is there > any advantages to running XP pro vs XP home? the price tag? You *were* going to pay Billy for it, right? ;-P 98SE is still fine for all my gaming needs, no sound issues and rock stable with GPL (basically all I care about, I use Linux for productivity needs) Also, you probably still have a valid 98SE license lying around so there is no need to waste 100's of dollars on XP. Cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

From my perspective XP was the best $100 (a sawbuck for all us rednecks, hehe) that I've ever spent in over 20 years and many many thousands of dollars PC'ing...(add quite a few more many's) The only reason I wouldn't say Papy's products fit the above category is cause I ended up having to do numerous hardware upgrades just for their games which brought the totals closer to the thousands than hundreds :) Supporting 9x is like getting ur wisdom teeth pulled without novacaine.. Or like ... nevermind hehe.. Mitch "Uwe hoover Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 02:48:05 GMT, Tom wrote: > > I would think 98 SE would consume less resources. If XP is better, isthere

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > any advantages to running XP pro vs XP home? > > the price tag? You *were* going to pay Billy for it, right? ;-P > > 98SE is still fine for all my gaming needs, no sound issues and > rock stable with GPL (basically all I care about, I use Linux > for productivity needs) > > Also, you probably still have a valid 98SE license lying around > so there is no need to waste 100's of dollars on XP. > > Cheers, > > uwe > > > -- > mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) > Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ > Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) > GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

I'm not going to try and convince an XP user that he's using a slower OS, for one because I wouldn't want to invest the time required for a detailed discussion, and more important, it isn't my intention to frustrate anyone by talking bad about their system or other stuff they're using. But I'll stand by my opinion given to Tom. Achim "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > I'd be willing to argue that actually

DOS 6.2 Runs STUNTS quite smoothly.. I'll agree with that answer. Mike http://mikebeauchamp.com "Steve Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 02:48:05 GMT, "Tom" <[email hidden]> > reckoned: > > >I'm planning a new gaming PC based on an ASUS A7N8X DLX and a AMD 2600+. > > > >Which operating system is best for a gaming PC, Win 98SE or XP? > > Dos 6.2

I agree, XP is the best $100 I've ever spent in computing. It's fantastic. David G Fisher "Despiser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YFzY9.4086$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> From my perspective XP was the best $100 (a sawbuck for all us rednecks, > hehe) that I've ever spent in over 20 years and many many thousands of > dollars PC'ing...(add quite a few more many's) > > The only reason I wouldn't say Papy's products fit the above category is > cause I ended up having to do numerous hardware upgrades just for their > games which brought the totals closer to the thousands than hundreds :) > > Supporting 9x is like getting ur wisdom teeth pulled without novacaine..

Or

Quoted text (33 lines)

> like ... nevermind hehe.. > > Mitch > > > "Uwe hoover Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 02:48:05 GMT, Tom wrote: > > > I would think 98 SE would consume less resources. If XP is better, is > there > > > any advantages to running XP pro vs XP home? > > > > the price tag? You *were* going to pay Billy for it, right? ;-P > > > > 98SE is still fine for all my gaming needs, no sound issues and > > rock stable with GPL (basically all I care about, I use Linux > > for productivity needs) > > > > Also, you probably still have a valid 98SE license lying around > > so there is no need to waste 100's of dollars on XP. > > > > Cheers, > > > > uwe > > > > > > -- > > mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) > > Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ > > Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) > > GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61 > >

Heya Tom. On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 02:48:05 GMT, "Tom" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I'm planning a new gaming PC based on an ASUS A7N8X DLX and a AMD 2600+. > >Which operating system is best for a gaming PC, Win 98SE or XP? >I would think 98 SE would consume less resources. If XP is better, is there >any advantages to running XP pro vs XP home? I've such a motherboard, and I've choosen Windows XP Pro as OS. Now, if you play GPL, you might not be happy. First, the onboard sound, albeit great in other software, has in GPL the same problem as the Soundblaster Live, i.e. crackling sound. If you decide to place an Audigy 2, like I did, then you solve the sound problem, but then you'll discover you can't use the gameport on the soundcard. You can disable the onboard gameport in the BIOS, but somehow the resources aren't made available for other gameports. For me this is a problem, since XP doesn't allow direct access to the gameport. My problem with the onboard gameport is, is that it spikes too much. Of course, if you don't play GPL, or don't need a gameport, XP is a great OS. Remco

XP, and XP Home is starting to show it's weak spots with todays products. Skip it and get Pro. Larry "Tom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FVmY9.4310$[email hidden]... > I'm planning a new gaming PC based on an ASUS A7N8X DLX and a AMD 2600+. > > Which operating system is best for a gaming PC, Win 98SE or XP? > I would think 98 SE would consume less resources. If XP is better, isthere

Quoted text (8 lines)

> any advantages to running XP pro vs XP home? > > Thanks > Tom > > > >

It's been tested to death. It just don't matter any more. Any perceived small performance loss (if it even exists) in XP is by far made up for in other area's. Toms Hardware tested this themselves. XP won. I don't take a web site article for gospel, but my experience has matched theirs. Larry "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0uhtn$t4vhf$[email hidden]... > I'm not going to try and convince an XP user that he's using a slower OS, > for one because I wouldn't want to invest the time required for a detailed > discussion, and more important, it isn't my intention to frustrate anyoneby

Quoted text (13 lines)

> talking bad about their system or other stuff they're using. > > But I'll stand by my opinion given to Tom. > > Achim > > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > ... > > I'd be willing to argue that actually > >

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:GtXZ9.53839$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (32 lines)

> It's been tested to death. It just don't matter any more. Any > perceived small performance loss (if it even exists) in XP is by far > made up for in other area's. > > Toms Hardware tested this themselves. XP won. I don't take a web > site article for gospel, but my experience has matched theirs. > > Larry > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:b0uhtn$t4vhf$[email hidden]... >> I'm not going to try and convince an XP user that he's using a slower >> OS, for one because I wouldn't want to invest the time required for a >> detailed discussion, and more important, it isn't my intention to >> frustrate anyone > by >> talking bad about their system or other stuff they're using. >> >> But I'll stand by my opinion given to Tom. >> >> Achim >> >> >> "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> ... >> > I'd be willing to argue that actually >> >> > > >

I don't deny XP may have an incremental performance advantage. BUT. Is it $100 to $200 worth of improved performance? Is the increased performance worth another $150 for the cost of added RAM that should be purchased? XP is a good OS, but that is all it is...an OS. If you are talking performance upgrades, even a new motherboard might give better results. XP has networking advantages, stability advantages, etc but non of that contributes to faster gameplay. It does have ONE huge thing in it's favor, and that is continued support. Little by little new products will no longer work with Win9x. XP will have several more years of operating life. So for those folks who argue win9x or XP is faster, it's such a small difference it is not even worth arguing about. What is desirable is hardware compatiblity, software upgradabilty and shelf life. I've said this too many times to count, but if you want to IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE of your system, get a faster CPU. Spend your money on something that will make a real world difference, not on a product that needs benchmarking numbers to see any real performance upgrade. If you are buying a new system that has XP bundled in, great. If you have a real NEED for extra RAM and the networkability of XP, then go for it. But if all you are looking for is MORE SPEED, then skip buying XP until you are either forced to from software incompatibilites or job imperatives. People make win9x out to be an imminent-crash-any-second type of OS. It can be prone to problems...But I've read plenty of XP crashing stories here as well. In my book, a crash is a crash, just because one behaves better than the other AFTER the crash does not make it a Godsend. I had a nasty ongoing problem with the REAL ONE media player. but an update to that seems to have stopped those crashes. Windows Media Player version 6 would never properly shut down either, I'm hoping v9 will fix that. Someday the features of XP will make the choice easy, but I keep comming back to the cost vs. the gain. It's too small to be financially feasible when you are weighing OVERALL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE. dave henrie

Larry wrote: > > XP, and XP Home is starting to show it's weak spots with todays products. > Skip it and get Pro. The difference in Home and PRO version lies mainly in areas most home users would never use, however there are some administrative tools in PRO which is not present in the Home version, I've forgot which ones though But for the average user there's no difference end the extra money would be a waste, AFAIK, I'd be happy to read up on the subject if you have some hard facts to the contrary though :-), my personal experience with XP lies almost exclusively with the PRO version Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (44 lines)

> "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:GtXZ9.53839$[email hidden]: > > > It's been tested to death. It just don't matter any more. Any > > perceived small performance loss (if it even exists) in XP is by far > > made up for in other area's. > > > > Toms Hardware tested this themselves. XP won. I don't take a web > > site article for gospel, but my experience has matched theirs. > > > > Larry > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:b0uhtn$t4vhf$[email hidden]... > >> I'm not going to try and convince an XP user that he's using a slower > >> OS, for one because I wouldn't want to invest the time required for a > >> detailed discussion, and more important, it isn't my intention to > >> frustrate anyone > > by > >> talking bad about their system or other stuff they're using. > >> > >> But I'll stand by my opinion given to Tom. > >> > >> Achim > >> > >> > >> "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> news:[email hidden]... > >> ... > >> > I'd be willing to argue that actually > >> > >> > > > > > > > > I don't deny XP may have an incremental performance advantage. BUT. Is > it $100 to $200 worth of improved performance? Is the increased > performance worth another $150 for the cost of added RAM that should be > purchased? > XP is a good OS, but that is all it is...an OS. If you are talking > performance upgrades, even a new motherboard might give better results. > XP has networking advantages, stability advantages, etc but non of that > contributes to faster gameplay. It does have ONE huge thing in it's

favor, > and that is continued support. Little by little new products will no > longer work with Win9x. XP will have several more years of operatinglife. > So for those folks who argue win9x or XP is faster, it's such a small > difference it is not even worth arguing about. What is desirable is > hardware compatiblity, software upgradabilty and shelf life. I've said > this too many times to count, but if you want to IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCEof

Quoted text (19 lines)

> your system, get a faster CPU. Spend your money on something that will > make a real world difference, not on a product that needs benchmarking > numbers to see any real performance upgrade. > If you are buying a new system that has XP bundled in, great. If you > have a real NEED for extra RAM and the networkability of XP, then go for > it. But if all you are looking for is MORE SPEED, then skip buying XP > until you are either forced to from software incompatibilites or job > imperatives. > People make win9x out to be an imminent-crash-any-second type of OS. > It can be prone to problems...But I've read plenty of XP crashing stories > here as well. In my book, a crash is a crash, just because one behaves > better than the other AFTER the crash does not make it a Godsend. I had a > nasty ongoing problem with the REAL ONE media player. but an update to > that seems to have stopped those crashes. Windows Media Player version 6 > would never properly shut down either, I'm hoping v9 will fix that. > Someday the features of XP will make the choice easy, but I keep comming > back to the cost vs. the gain. It's too small to be financially feasible > when you are weighing OVERALL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE. > dave henrie

Speed? Maybe there's not much of a difference. 99% of people could care less about what tech heads consider speed differences anyway. It's reliability, compatibility, and features that people care about. Time is money. I also place value on my personal time as well. I don't want to spend one second more of it than I have to screwing around with a computer. The system restore point feature is worth the upgrade alone for most people. It works perfectly with every game I've tried so far. For me, the upgrade price was nothing in comparison to what I've gained, and I never even had many problems at all with Win98 or 95 on my computers. David G Fisher

Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > > Larry wrote: >> >> XP, and XP Home is starting to show it's weak spots with todays >> products. Skip it and get Pro. > > The difference in Home and PRO version lies mainly in areas most home > users would never use, however there are some administrative tools in > PRO which is not present in the Home version, I've forgot which ones > though > > But for the average user there's no difference end the extra money > would be a waste, AFAIK, I'd be happy to read up on the subject if you > have some hard facts to the contrary though :-), my personal > experience with XP lies almost exclusively with the PRO version > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx-- >

The PCMagazine guys have steadfastly adhered to Pro over Home right from the start. The main difference for regular users would be some improved networking, if I recall. But the editors at PCMag feel Home will be more and more a hindrance as the OS's mature. Probably some editorial stuff on thier site about it. dave henrie

Gaming isn't the only reason _I_ bought XP. Gaming just came along for the ride... Larry "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (44 lines)

> "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:GtXZ9.53839$[email hidden]: > > > It's been tested to death. It just don't matter any more. Any > > perceived small performance loss (if it even exists) in XP is by far > > made up for in other area's. > > > > Toms Hardware tested this themselves. XP won. I don't take a web > > site article for gospel, but my experience has matched theirs. > > > > Larry > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:b0uhtn$t4vhf$[email hidden]... > >> I'm not going to try and convince an XP user that he's using a slower > >> OS, for one because I wouldn't want to invest the time required for a > >> detailed discussion, and more important, it isn't my intention to > >> frustrate anyone > > by > >> talking bad about their system or other stuff they're using. > >> > >> But I'll stand by my opinion given to Tom. > >> > >> Achim > >> > >> > >> "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> news:[email hidden]... > >> ... > >> > I'd be willing to argue that actually > >> > >> > > > > > > > > I don't deny XP may have an incremental performance advantage. BUT. Is > it $100 to $200 worth of improved performance? Is the increased > performance worth another $150 for the cost of added RAM that should be > purchased? > XP is a good OS, but that is all it is...an OS. If you are talking > performance upgrades, even a new motherboard might give better results. > XP has networking advantages, stability advantages, etc but non of that > contributes to faster gameplay. It does have ONE huge thing in it's

favor, > and that is continued support. Little by little new products will no > longer work with Win9x. XP will have several more years of operatinglife. > So for those folks who argue win9x or XP is faster, it's such a small > difference it is not even worth arguing about. What is desirable is > hardware compatiblity, software upgradabilty and shelf life. I've said > this too many times to count, but if you want to IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCEof

Quoted text (19 lines)

> your system, get a faster CPU. Spend your money on something that will > make a real world difference, not on a product that needs benchmarking > numbers to see any real performance upgrade. > If you are buying a new system that has XP bundled in, great. If you > have a real NEED for extra RAM and the networkability of XP, then go for > it. But if all you are looking for is MORE SPEED, then skip buying XP > until you are either forced to from software incompatibilites or job > imperatives. > People make win9x out to be an imminent-crash-any-second type of OS. > It can be prone to problems...But I've read plenty of XP crashing stories > here as well. In my book, a crash is a crash, just because one behaves > better than the other AFTER the crash does not make it a Godsend. I had a > nasty ongoing problem with the REAL ONE media player. but an update to > that seems to have stopped those crashes. Windows Media Player version 6 > would never properly shut down either, I'm hoping v9 will fix that. > Someday the features of XP will make the choice easy, but I keep comming > back to the cost vs. the gain. It's too small to be financially feasible > when you are weighing OVERALL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE. > dave henrie

Yeah, like networking. The most comon complaint about home is Networking. Some people have a hell of a time getting it to work. And don't forget that the difficiencies in Home are is one of the reasons every smart display sold has a bundled copy of XP Pro in the box, whether you want it or want to pay for it or not. Again, I recommend Home to NO ONE. I'll never be convinced otherwise. I own and have used both. I find Home to be a pain in the ass. Larry "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Larry wrote: > > > > XP, and XP Home is starting to show it's weak spots with todaysproducts.

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > Skip it and get Pro. > > The difference in Home and PRO version lies mainly in areas most home > users would never use, however there are some administrative tools in > PRO which is not present in the Home version, I've forgot which ones > though > > But for the average user there's no difference end the extra money would > be a waste, AFAIK, I'd be happy to read up on the subject if you have > some hard facts to the contrary though :-), my personal experience with > XP lies almost exclusively with the PRO version > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:Rce_9.62774$[email hidden]: > Gaming isn't the only reason _I_ bought XP. Gaming just came along > for the ride... > > Larry Ok let me get this straight. First somebody says people ACTUALLY choose other GTR cars than the Vipers...NOW you tell me there's more to computers than Gaming? These concepts are too large to wrap my brainpan around. dave henrie

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 02:50:48 GMT, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote: > Ok let me get this straight. First somebody says people ACTUALLY choose >other GTR cars than the Vipers...NOW you tell me there's more to computers >than Gaming? These concepts are too large to wrap my brainpan around. >dave henrie Someday I hope to complete a lap in a car other than the 360 or Diablo. Jason

Dang, inflation strikes again. "Despiser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<YFzY9.4086$[email hidden]>... > $100 (a sawbuck for all us rednecks, hehe)

Dang, inflation strikes again. > $100 (a sawbuck for all us rednecks, hehe)

Larry wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Yeah, like networking. The most comon complaint about home is Networking. > Some people have a hell of a time getting it to work. > > And don't forget that the difficiencies in Home are is one of the reasons > every smart display sold has a bundled copy of XP Pro in the box, whether > you want it or want to pay for it or not. > > Again, I recommend Home to NO ONE. I'll never be convinced otherwise. I > own and have used both. I find Home to be a pain in the ass.

Ok...... I'm trying really hard to understand your complaints against XP Home and I'm not getting it, not looking for an argument, just not getting it Today I installed XP home on 3 computers for customers and XP Pro on one of my shop computers (long boring story about being too cheap to buy a UPS omitted) That's from the ground up, with drivers and service packs and what not, and aside from not being able to connect to my NT Domain with the Home based computers, I didn't see any differences, as soon as the drivers for the NIC was installed, it grabbed an IP from my DHCP server and I could get working, didn't even need a reboot Since I know about the NT Domain problem I have a W98 computer hanging about which I can share the files I need to and let the XP Home machines grab their drivers from there, transfer rates are just as fast as in PRO None of this would ever matter to your average Home user so why shell out an extra 100 dollars for some admin tools and some advanced networking stuff that they'd "never" use ? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (43 lines)

> Larry wrote: >> >> Yeah, like networking. The most comon complaint about home is >> Networking. Some people have a hell of a time getting it to work. >> >> And don't forget that the difficiencies in Home are is one of the reasons >> every smart display sold has a bundled copy of XP Pro in the box, whether >> you want it or want to pay for it or not. >> >> Again, I recommend Home to NO ONE. I'll never be convinced otherwise. I >> own and have used both. I find Home to be a pain in the ass. > > Ok...... > > I'm trying really hard to understand your complaints against XP Home and > I'm not getting it, not looking for an argument, just not getting it > > Today I installed XP home on 3 computers for customers and XP Pro on one > of my shop computers (long boring story about being too cheap to buy a > UPS omitted) > > That's from the ground up, with drivers and service packs and what not, > and aside from not being able to connect to my NT Domain with the Home > based computers, I didn't see any differences, as soon as the drivers > for the NIC was installed, it grabbed an IP from my DHCP server and I > could get working, didn't even need a reboot > > Since I know about the NT Domain problem I have a W98 computer hanging > about which I can share the files I need to and let the XP Home machines > grab their drivers from there, transfer rates are just as fast as in PRO > > None of this would ever matter to your average Home user so why shell > out an extra 100 dollars for some admin tools and some advanced > networking stuff that they'd "never" use ? > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

I have to agree with Goy here, I have delved pretty deeply into both Home and Pro, and have run both. I find peformance on both to be the same, as well as stablity. With Pro you get more security features, multi-processor support, more advanced permission settings, and the ability to join a domain. The core however is identical, and both operate pretty much identical when it comes to performance, ie running apps, games, benchmarks, etc. When I upgraded Home to Pro, I benchmarked both before and after, and got virtually identical benchmarks. Why did I choose to spend the extra money on upgrading to Pro after having Home already? I wanted the file encryption capabilities, and because I could :). If I had not upgraded to Pro, I still would be quite content with home. Just peruse the MS XP newsgroups, the general consensus is the same. Don Burnette -- Don Burnette

If you don't want to tinker with the operating system at all I suppose Home would be fine. With Pro I have gone in and turned off a number of services that I didn't need. The ability to turn these off is not included with Home. Also I have used the QoS scheduler in Pro to improve my bandwidth marginally by restricting the OS's access to it. With Home the OS can use up to 20% of your bandwidth and there is no way to control it. I suppose the average user would not get in deeply enough to even find these tools, but for some of us Pro makes sense because we can and will use the extra management tools to improve the performance of our system. "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > I have to agree with Goy here, I have delved pretty deeply into both Home > and Pro, and have run both. I find peformance on both to be the same, as > well as stablity. With Pro you get more security features, multi-processor > support, more advanced permission settings, and the ability to join a > domain. > The core however is identical, and both operate pretty much identical when > it comes to performance, ie running apps, games, benchmarks, etc. > When I upgraded Home to Pro, I benchmarked both before and after, and got > virtually identical benchmarks. > Why did I choose to spend the extra money on upgrading to Pro after having > Home already? I wanted the file encryption capabilities, and because I

could > :). If I had not upgraded to Pro, I still would be quite content withhome. > Just peruse the MS XP newsgroups, the general consensus is the same. > > Don Burnette > >

Hmm, I thought remembering I could disable services in Home as well. Nonetheless , I am curious about how you tweaked your bandwidth using the QoS scheduler. I show it installed on my system for my Lan connection, however I do not see where to change any settings. I searched Help and Support and the only result I got was how to install it. I would be curious as to what you tweaked and if you saw a performance gain in downloading from it. Thanks, Don Burnette Haqsau wrote:

Quoted text (31 lines)

> If you don't want to tinker with the operating system at all I suppose > Home would be fine. With Pro I have gone in and turned off a number of > services that I didn't need. The ability to turn these off is not > included with Home. Also I have used the QoS scheduler in Pro to improve > my bandwidth marginally by restricting the OS's access to it. With Home > the OS can use up to 20% of your bandwidth and there is no way to control > it. I suppose the average user would not get in deeply enough to even > find these tools, but for some of us Pro makes sense because we can and > will use the extra management tools to improve the performance of our > system. > > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> >> I have to agree with Goy here, I have delved pretty deeply into both Home >> and Pro, and have run both. I find peformance on both to be the same, as >> well as stablity. With Pro you get more security features, >> multi-processor support, more advanced permission settings, and the >> ability to join a domain. >> The core however is identical, and both operate pretty much identical >> when it comes to performance, ie running apps, games, benchmarks, etc. >> When I upgraded Home to Pro, I benchmarked both before and after, and got >> virtually identical benchmarks. >> Why did I choose to spend the extra money on upgrading to Pro after >> having Home already? I wanted the file encryption capabilities, and >> because I could :). If I had not upgraded to Pro, I still would be quite >> content with home. Just peruse the MS XP newsgroups, the general >> consensus is the same. >> >> Don Burnette

Here's a link that explains it: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23090.html To be honest with you I have not made any attempt at measuring whether the net performance has improved or not. Perhaps it's not necessary. My primary reason for doing it is that I do not want Windows interrupting a game because it thinks it's time to go check Windows Update or some such thing. So I chopped its bandwidth allowance back to 5%. I didn't want to shut it off entirely because I really don't know for sure what it would use it for, and I didn't want to risk shutting off some possibly important service. But I also don't like anything interrupting my online gaming, and with Home (or Pro as installed) the OS can arbitrarily consume up to 20% of your bandwidth. So chopping it back to 5% seemed like a safe compromise. "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Hmm, I thought remembering I could disable services in Home as well. > > Nonetheless , I am curious about how you tweaked your bandwidth using the > QoS scheduler. I show it installed on my system for my Lan connection, > however I do not see where to change any settings. I searched Help and > Support and the only result I got was how to install it. > I would be curious as to what you tweaked and if you saw a performance

gain

Quoted text (7 lines)

> in downloading from it. > > Thanks, > > Don Burnette > >

Haqsau wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Here's a link that explains it: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23090.html > > To be honest with you I have not made any attempt at measuring whether the > net performance has improved or not. Perhaps it's not necessary. My > primary reason for doing it is that I do not want Windows interrupting a > game because it thinks it's time to go check Windows Update or some such > thing. So I chopped its bandwidth allowance back to 5%. I didn't want to > shut it off entirely because I really don't know for sure what it would use > it for, and I didn't want to risk shutting off some possibly important > service. But I also don't like anything interrupting my online gaming, and > with Home (or Pro as installed) the OS can arbitrarily consume up to 20% of > your bandwidth. So chopping it back to 5% seemed like a safe compromise.

I've shut it off completley, noticed a very small increase in DL speeds, have not noticed anything bad from doing so Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

You can shut down whatever siervices you want in XP Home. Control Panel/Administrative Tools/Services David G Fisher "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b1grkg$131kc7$[email hidden]... > If you don't want to tinker with the operating system at all I supposeHome > would be fine. With Pro I have gone in and turned off a number ofservices

Quoted text (13 lines)

> that I didn't need. The ability to turn these off is not included with > Home. Also I have used the QoS scheduler in Pro to improve my bandwidth > marginally by restricting the OS's access to it. With Home the OS can use > up to 20% of your bandwidth and there is no way to control it. I suppose > the average user would not get in deeply enough to even find these tools, > but for some of us Pro makes sense because we can and will use the extra > management tools to improve the performance of our system. > > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > I have to agree with Goy here, I have delved pretty deeply into both

Home > > and Pro, and have run both. I find peformance on both to be the same, as > > well as stablity. With Pro you get more security features,multi-processor > > support, more advanced permission settings, and the ability to join a > > domain. > > The core however is identical, and both operate pretty much identicalwhen > > it comes to performance, ie running apps, games, benchmarks, etc. > > When I upgraded Home to Pro, I benchmarked both before and after, andgot > > virtually identical benchmarks. > > Why did I choose to spend the extra money on upgrading to Pro afterhaving

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Home already? I wanted the file encryption capabilities, and because I > could > > :). If I had not upgraded to Pro, I still would be quite content with > home. > > Just peruse the MS XP newsgroups, the general consensus is the same. > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > >

On Sat, 01 Feb 2003 19:23:30 +0100, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote: >I've shut it off completley, noticed a very small increase in DL speeds, >have not noticed anything bad from doing so Ditto. OTOH, I have pretty much every TSR and service disabled, so YMMV. Jason

Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > The PCMagazine guys have steadfastly adhered to Pro over Home right from > the start. The main difference for regular users would be some improved > networking, if I recall. But the editors at PCMag feel Home will be more > and more a hindrance as the OS's mature. > Probably some editorial stuff on thier site about it. > dave henrie

I'll have to give this a once over, thx Dave Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Dave Henrie wrote: > > The PCMagazine guys have steadfastly adhered to Pro over Home right from > the start. The main difference for regular users would be some improved > networking, if I recall. But the editors at PCMag feel Home will be more > and more a hindrance as the OS's mature. > Probably some editorial stuff on thier site about it. Found it.....I think I can't believe they printed that, the article is full of factual errors and has little or no basis in reality And aside from the HT issue, which they correct themselves, it's about networking again, advanced networking that is In another article, there's more of the same.... "First, Windows XP Home is essentially a downgrade from Windows 2000, gussied up with pretty icons and trimmed out with multimedia features that were mostly present in Windows Me. It is not a viable choice for most professional or laptop users. Though Windows XP's networking capabilities are the best yet, Windows XP Home Edition is deliberately crippled. It can't log on to Windows 2000 domains, which means that you probably can't use it at work�and may not be allowed to, since it can compromise the security of corporate networks." Hello, does the word "Home" mean anything, if you need the advanced networking feature, buy PRO, it costs exactly the same as Win2k PRO "Second, the Home version doesn't give you much that's new. The difference is that it's bundled in from Microsoft instead of another company. So instead of using the familiar Easy CD Creator, you burn your CDs from Windows Explorer. Does it have all the features you need? Probably not. Will it hurt the companies that make more complete products? Definitely" Doesn't give me much new.....it gives me an OS targeted at the home user, which Win2k never was, based on the NT kernel, that's not new ? And MS cut out some stuff they didn't think I need as a home user and gave me a 50% discount, how utterly cruel of them, what the numbnut fails to say anything about of course, is the fact that XP Pro costs no more than his beloved Win2k, Home users get a discount, if you want XP to do everything Win2k does, you pay the exact same price.... But I've still not read one fact on this site that supports his claim that average home users misses out on anything important....it's back to being able to log into NT Domains again, this is not a huge thing for the average user Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

In article <b1grkg$131kc7$[email hidden]>, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> writes: >Also I have used the QoS scheduler in Pro to improve my bandwidth >marginally by restricting the OS's access to it. With Home the OS can use >up to 20% of your bandwidth and there is no way to control it. How do you know that? We have a bunch of students on our network who are probably running XP Home, and it may be a noticible bandwith hit for them. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:-0.381 N2002 Rank:+17.59 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > In article <b1grkg$131kc7$[email hidden]>, "Haqsau" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >Also I have used the QoS scheduler in Pro to improve my bandwidth > >marginally by restricting the OS's access to it. With Home the OS can use > >up to 20% of your bandwidth and there is no way to control it. > > How do you know that? We have a bunch of students on our network who are > probably running XP Home, and it may be a noticible bandwith hit for them.

There seems to be a general consensus to this "up to 20%" figure....as always, take it FWIW.... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

(Had to switch news servers because my regular one is down. Sorry if this appears out of sequence as a result). Couldn't give you a definitive list, but there are quite a few services that you can control in the Group Policy Editor that are marked "Requirements: at least Microsoft Windows XP Professional". Come to think of it, the Group Policy Editor itself is only available in XP Pro. Anyway what I am saying is that in Home you can shut down whatever services it shows you, but it isn't showing you all of them, and in fact you aren't even given the tools necessary to control all of them. "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You can shut down whatever siervices you want in XP Home. Control > Panel/Administrative Tools/Services > > David G Fisher >

Please see my previous reply in this thread to Don Burnette. "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > How do you know that? We have a bunch of students on our network who are > probably running XP Home, and it may be a noticible bandwith hit for them. > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:-0.381 > N2002 Rank:+17.59 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

It's not just a matter of consensus, the 20% figure is the default for the QoS packet scheduler, and it says right in the help file that it will also use 20% if QoS is not running. IOW the only way to keep XP from using your bandwidth is to run QoS and set the allowance to 0%. Now, will the OS ever actually use 20% of a broadband connection? I don't know, but I know it can't on my PC. ;o) "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > > There seems to be a general consensus to this "up to 20%" figure....as > always, take it FWIW.... > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

Bring your Personal Laptop with XP Home on it into work and try to connect to a Novell or Microsoft ActiveDirectory Network and see how far you get... If you work within a large corporation, as I do, you see it all the time. And there are PLENTY of people who complain about not being able to get their small home-based simple file sharing networks to work as well. It just isn't worth it. And, I think it's going to get worse as time goes on and new technologies and products come out for XP. One more Tidbit. Have to tunnel into your corporate network to do benifits or other stuff using a SecureRemote tunnel? If you have the Home version of XP, don't bother trying to use SecureRemote. Larry "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Larry wrote: > > > > Yeah, like networking. The most comon complaint about home isNetworking. > > Some people have a hell of a time getting it to work. > > > > And don't forget that the difficiencies in Home are is one of thereasons > > every smart display sold has a bundled copy of XP Pro in the box,whether > > you want it or want to pay for it or not. > > > > Again, I recommend Home to NO ONE. I'll never be convinced otherwise.I

Quoted text (33 lines)

> > own and have used both. I find Home to be a pain in the ass. > > Ok...... > > I'm trying really hard to understand your complaints against XP Home and > I'm not getting it, not looking for an argument, just not getting it > > Today I installed XP home on 3 computers for customers and XP Pro on one > of my shop computers (long boring story about being too cheap to buy a > UPS omitted) > > That's from the ground up, with drivers and service packs and what not, > and aside from not being able to connect to my NT Domain with the Home > based computers, I didn't see any differences, as soon as the drivers > for the NIC was installed, it grabbed an IP from my DHCP server and I > could get working, didn't even need a reboot > > Since I know about the NT Domain problem I have a W98 computer hanging > about which I can share the files I need to and let the XP Home machines > grab their drivers from there, transfer rates are just as fast as in PRO > > None of this would ever matter to your average Home user so why shell > out an extra 100 dollars for some admin tools and some advanced > networking stuff that they'd "never" use ? > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

Larry wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Bring your Personal Laptop with XP Home on it into work and try to connect > to a Novell or Microsoft ActiveDirectory Network and see how far you get... > If you work within a large corporation, as I do, you see it all the time. > > And there are PLENTY of people who complain about not being able to get > their small home-based simple file sharing networks to work as well. > > It just isn't worth it. And, I think it's going to get worse as time goes > on and new technologies and products come out for XP. > > One more Tidbit. Have to tunnel into your corporate network to do benifits > or other stuff using a SecureRemote tunnel? If you have the Home version of > XP, don't bother trying to use SecureRemote.

Larry, stop reading PC Magazine :-) Your complaints are valid in one way, but some people talk about Home as if it's broken or something, it's not, it's lacking some advanced features which the Pro have, in exchange for that MS gives you a 50% discount Personally I think that if the IT dep at your place of work doesn't inform you about this when you go out and purchase a new system for "home office" use or a laptop, they're the ones failing, not the OS Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Larry" wrote... >>> Bring your Personal Laptop with XP Home on it into work and try toconnect to a Novell or Microsoft ActiveDirectory Network and see how far you get...<<< We have a Novell network at work, with about 30 W98's, 5 or 6 XPHome's, and a few stray Macs hanging on it. I know there are issues, and our tech people are recommending XPPro's for new purchases, but the Home's are all working happily. >>> And there are PLENTY of people who complain about not being able to gettheir small home-based simple file sharing networks to work as well.<<< Don't doubt that lots of people have trouble networking, but my home system has an XPHome and Win98 networked for file and internet connection sharing. Wasn't too much problem to set up. I got the Home on purpose because I perceived that I'd need to know more about the guts of networks and domains and such to run Pro than I really wanted to. Probably an unfounded perception, but I can live with that ;-)

In article <[email hidden]>, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> writes: >Personally I think that if the IT dep at your place of work doesn't >inform you about this when you go out and purchase a new system for >"home office" use or a laptop, they're the ones failing, not the OS How are they failing? It's not the IT department's job to assist you with a purchase for a *personal* machine... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:-0.381 N2002 Rank:+17.59 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > In article <[email hidden]>, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> > writes: > > >Personally I think that if the IT dep at your place of work doesn't > >inform you about this when you go out and purchase a new system for > >"home office" use or a laptop, they're the ones failing, not the OS > > How are they failing? It's not the IT department's job to assist you with a > purchase for a *personal* machine...

If you purchase a system for Home Office use, it's implied that you will at some point want to to connect to the office LAN or do some more advanced networking of some sorts, goes with the territory, in which case it's fairly certain that your place of employment will pick up at least some of the bill for the purchase, in which case it falls under the IT department to give you some kind of advice as to what kind of hardware/software you need to be able to do so, or maybe even do the purchase for you Whenever I have customers looking for something like this, I always ask if they have contacted their IT dep, if they haven't I advice them to do so and tell them I'll be quite happy to talk to a rep from their IT dep to make sure they go home with the right hardware/software for their use, to me that's nothing but common sense Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Goy Larsen to me that's nothing but common sense > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy Yeah but Goy, these are the general public we are talking about...common sense???????? ????|>>>> ????????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?

Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Goy Larsen to me that's nothing but common sense > > > > > > Beers and cheers > > (uncle) Goy > > Yeah but Goy, these are the general public we are talking > about...common sense???????? > ????|>>>> > ????????? > ?????? > ??????? > ?? > ?

Sometimes I forget that I live in an imperfect world, thx for reminding me Dave, nice to know I can count on you to get me down to earth again Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

In article <[email hidden]>, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> How are they failing? It's not the IT department's job to assist you with >a >> purchase for a *personal* machine... > >If you purchase a system for Home Office use, it's implied that you will >at some point want to to connect to the office LAN or do some more >advanced networking of some sorts, goes with the territory, in which >case it's fairly certain that your place of employment will pick up at >least some of the bill for the purchase, in which case it falls under >the IT department to give you some kind of advice as to what kind of >hardware/software you need to be able to do so, or maybe even do the >purchase for you

Just because someone buys a computer to telecommute doesn't automatically mean they'll ever bring it into the office. That's what the OFFICE computer is for... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:-0.381 N2002 Rank:+17.59 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

EldredP wrote: > > Just because someone buys a computer to telecommute doesn't automatically mean > they'll ever bring it into the office. That's what the OFFICE computer is > for... Ok, I think we might have a breakdown in communications here, I'll start over If you were to buy a new home system with the specific intention of being able to telecommute, you'd check with the IT department what to look for, right ? That's what I'd do, spending my hard earned dosh on something which can't be used for it's intended purpose is something I really hate, and if I don't know how things work I ask for advice, I may be naive but I assume other people do the same :-) So if I want to be able to telecommute, I ask the IT dep what I should be looking for when I go out and spend my (or the company's) money, of course, if the silly blighter doesn't check with the IT dep, it's his own fault In any case I'm not blaming the OS or MS Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" --Groucho Marx--

I don't have to read PC Magazine. I live it every single day :) And do you ACTUALLY think end-users listen to the IT department when it comes to doing the right thing? Ha! The stories I could tell :) Larry "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Larry wrote: > > > > Bring your Personal Laptop with XP Home on it into work and try toconnect > > to a Novell or Microsoft ActiveDirectory Network and see how far youget... > > If you work within a large corporation, as I do, you see it all thetime. > > > > And there are PLENTY of people who complain about not being able to get > > their small home-based simple file sharing networks to work as well. > > > > It just isn't worth it. And, I think it's going to get worse as timegoes > > on and new technologies and products come out for XP. > > > > One more Tidbit. Have to tunnel into your corporate network to dobenifits > > or other stuff using a SecureRemote tunnel? If you have the Homeversion of

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > XP, don't bother trying to use SecureRemote. > > Larry, stop reading PC Magazine :-) > > Your complaints are valid in one way, but some people talk about Home as > if it's broken or something, it's not, it's lacking some advanced > features which the Pro have, in exchange for that MS gives you a 50% > discount > > Personally I think that if the IT dep at your place of work doesn't > inform you about this when you go out and purchase a new system for > "home office" use or a laptop, they're the ones failing, not the OS > > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

Larry wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > I don't have to read PC Magazine. I live it every single day :) > > And do you ACTUALLY think end-users listen to the IT department when it > comes to doing the right thing? > > Ha! The stories I could tell :)

Fair enough, guess I've just been lucky with my customers :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

In article <[email hidden]>, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (25 lines)

>EldredP wrote: >> >> Just because someone buys a computer to telecommute doesn't automatically >mean >> they'll ever bring it into the office. That's what the OFFICE computer is >> for... > >Ok, I think we might have a breakdown in communications here, I'll start >over > >If you were to buy a new home system with the specific intention of >being able to telecommute, you'd check with the IT department what to >look for, right ? > >That's what I'd do, spending my hard earned dosh on something which >can't be used for it's intended purpose is something I really hate, and >if I don't know how things work I ask for advice, I may be naive but I >assume other people do the same :-) > >So if I want to be able to telecommute, I ask the IT dep what I should >be looking for when I go out and spend my (or the company's) money, of >course, if the silly blighter doesn't check with the IT dep, it's his >own fault > >In any case I'm not blaming the OS or MS

Hell, I forgot what we were arguing about...<g> But, I agree with what you just posted. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:-0.381 N2002 Rank:+17.59 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.