Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (48713)	8/25/2000 12:56:42 PM
From: Jordan A. Sheridan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Where did you get the incorrect impression that Windows 2000 is such a departure from NT? A suitably flexible base? C'mon Charles, you know better. Have either of you ever even seen Windows 2000 Pro or server? Maybe read an article or two talking about what it has to offer? I find it highly unlikely that the answer to either question is yes given the statements you and dybdahl are making. Jordan

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (48713)	8/25/2000 3:53:07 PM
From: Andy Thomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

--I take Microsoft's decision to depart from NT with Win2000 as either an admission that NT wasn't a suitably flexible base on which to build-- ...say what? "Windows 2000" is just "NT5" after the marketing guys got ahold of it. So yes in my opinion they thought NT 4 was a suitable base, because Win2000 is simply "NT 5 but called Windows 2000." When I was taking Windows 2000 support technicians classes, the first thing which struck me about Active Directory was that it was more than anything else an attempt to "sell more hardware." Still it appears from your post that you weren't aware that Win2000 was/is for the most part a continuation of NT4 and that nothing new was built from the ground up by MSFT. Andy Andy