Next Microsoft Server OS

[vee_ess]

Sorry, but you are wrong Chef...You must be following popular information...I have Whistler Beta 1 and Whistler Beta 2. For that, you have to install Platform SDK as part of the install (very hard one i might add, but any way back to topic). This is the Windows 2000 Platform virtually unchanged in many everyday aspects, but more advanced in web server operations and XML features. It is the basis of .NET. Hopefully, at this point you know what I am talking about. Windows XP has most of the networking options that 2000 has (although, Home Edition leaves out some of the big server type stuff), just it is not upfront like 2000 is because it is not only for the business market. It is also marketed for the home market (both Home Edition and Professional Edition). Windows XP doesn't have a simplified NT kernel. It is far, far more advanced and somewhat more advanced that Windows 2000. Start tweakin the kernel and you will see what I am talking about. Play with the services. It actually is based on the Windows 2000 kernel, and that is why it is only slightly more advanced. And I just want to emphasize this point: the server OS that will be coming out will not be based on XP (read what I said again), but it will be based off the same platform. You might want to be precautious of spreading mis-information like this on binarica.com.

If you want me to burn you a copy of the Whistler Beta 2 cd I can, so you are able to get the facts not the fables...

Mr vee_ess described here several things pretty inaccurate so I would like to make things clear :

1. "Microsoft Windows Whistler" is codename of Microsoft Windows XP, it was used until 02/01. You're talking about "Whistler Server" b1,2,3

2.

Windows XP is the next version of Microsoft Windows beyond Windows 2000 and Windows Millennium. Windows XP brings the convergence of Windows operating systems by integrating the strengths of Windows 2000—standards-based security, manageability and reliability with the best features of Windows 98 and Windows Me—Plug and Play, easy-to-use user interface, and innovative support services to create the best Windows yet.

-> microsoft.com

Windows XP is NOT a pure NOS (network operating system) and cannot be compared to Windows2000 networking features as W2K is pure NOS

Windows 2000(NT5.0) is a follower of Windows NT
Windows XP is a follower of Win95/98/ME using several advanced features of Windows2000 (i.e. modified NT Kernel)

It is not compared to W2K by Microsoft either
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...de/compare.asp

3.

Windows .NET Server evolves from the strengths of the Microsoft Windows NT® legacy and is fully interoperable with Windows 2000–based servers. Businesses that deploy the Windows 2000 Server Family today will be ready to easily upgrade to Windows .NET Server

-> microsoft.com

.NET servers can be compared to W2K servers without any doubt as they have very similar features. Similar (but not actual) sys reqs
http://www.microsoft.com/windows.NET...ng/default.asp

4.

Windows XP doesn't have a simplified NT kernel. It is far, far more advanced and somewhat more advanced that Windows 2000.

(vee_ess)

This doesn't make any sense. Windows XP has fewer network (and basically other) features then Win2000, so it would be downgrade to make server based on XP platform (which uses simplified NT kernel) instead of original W2K.

(Mighty Chef)

basically other is in doubt (although it is a good point for discussion), networking features obviously with no doubt since .NET is a follower of Windows2000.

You say :
WinNT kernel -> Win2K kernel -> Win XP kernel -> Winster Srv kernel

the thing is :
WinNT kernel -> Win2K kernel -> Winster Srv kernel

XP is on different production line.

5.

The next MS server OS will be Windows .NET Server. It is basically just Windows XP Server because it is based off the same platform, SDK Platform.

(vee_ess

Built on the reliable Windows 2000 Server family, Windows .NET Server integrates a powerful application environment to develop innovative XML Web services and business solutions that dramatically improve process efficiency.

(http://www.microsoft.com/windows.NETserver/)

For a conclusion :
I cannot assume that mr vee_ess is 100% wrong but he is very inaccurate in his super-information spreading.

Personal note for mr vee_ess : You can behave here the way you want as far as moderators don't care about. But if you will show your disgusting manners at Binarytalk.com forums our moderators would take all legal actions & hunt your ass badly. Then you'll face some facts  >


Cheers
Mighty Chef

[wizbones]

tsk tsk tsk. Calm down everyone. Not worth the headache or heartache. No medals to be won, no trenches to crawl in. Just a board where we post.

Just breath and all will be well in the world.

[MIK3]

dude there just verbally jousting...let them go at it if they know what there talking about, im getting a whole tun of info from this conversation...its good!  And besides, Global Moderators cant let their fellow members be mislead, can they? So only if theres blood shall they stop...cool w/ u?  

[wizbones]

;D  Beats what's on the tele  ;D

[MIK3]

Uh oh!  I smell a pretty sweet comeback....dun dun...dun dun... ;D  Ding Ding! Let round 2 begin...and remeber i want a nice clean fight...now LETS GET IT ON!!!!!!

[Uranium-235]

No hitting below the belt. Doing so would result in an immediate "disqualification".  

[vee_ess]

First off, don't make it personal, I'm not.

[quote author=Mighty_Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#11 date=06/13/02 at 16:10:18]1. "Microsoft Windows Whistler" is codename of Microsoft Windows XP, it was used until 02/01. You're talking about "Whistler Server" b1,2,3[/quote]
It is actually not called "Windows Whistler" but simply "Whistler" or, questionably and rarely Windows "Whistler", and, also, there is no "Whistler Server" but "Windows .NET Server Beta[1,2,3]", only because it came after the June ending of the Whistler series. Whistler Beta 1 was the only one used til 2/01 as Whistler Beta 2 was actually entitled, by Microsoft, "Whistler February 14th Edition" (because it was released from mid-February til June) as stated in its packaging, documentation, and on the CD itself.

You quoted Microsoft, but the information stated was irrelevant thereby allowing for derivation of a different point. This is twisting of words.

Windows XP is the next version of Microsoft Windows beyond Windows 2000 and Windows Millennium. Windows XP brings the convergence of Windows operating systems by integrating the strengths of Windows 2000—standards-based security, manageability and reliability with the best features of Windows 98 and Windows Me—Plug and Play, easy-to-use user interface, and innovative support services to create the best Windows yet.

-> microsoft.com

It actually never directly says what you are trying to prove, only that it has the best of both lines, but you somehow managed to derive the following false points:
[quote author=Mighty_Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#11 date=06/13/02 at 16:10:18]Windows XP is NOT a pure NOS (network operating system) and cannot be compared to Windows2000 networking features as W2K is pure NOS

Windows 2000(NT5.0) is a follower of Windows NT
Windows XP is a follower of Win95/98/ME using several advanced features of Windows2000 (i.e. modified NT Kernel)

It is not compared to W2K by Microsoft either
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...de/compare.asp[/quote]
These remarks can be disproved fairly easily...

You state that Windows 2000 is a NOS and that Windows XP isn't. Microsoft themselves exhibits the networking features and shows the advances from Windows 2000 at this page located at Microsoft.com. Further proof is coming very soon...

Windows XP is a "follower" of Windows 2000, as it's kernel is based on the Windows 2000 kernel.

Windows XP Professional is built on the proven code base of Windows 2000, which features a 32-bit computing architecture, and a fully protected memory model. This makes Windows XP Professional the most reliable version yet.

Microsoft
Therefore, it is impossible that Windows XP is based on a simplified NT4 kernel as that particular kernel is 16-bit based (besides the fact that MS says it is based on 2000). The Windows XP engine architecture is explained in further detail directly by Microsoft. This proves that the derivation of Windows XP being a follower of the Windows 9x line is quite false due to the fact that the 9x line is DOS based. They just state that it just has some of it's features. Looking directly at what Microsoft says, you've got it backwards. What it is:

Windows XP is a follower of Windows 2000 using several features of Windows 9x (including ME/98 third edition)

Microsoft does compare Windows XP to Windows 2000. You just stumbled upon a place where they were advertising directly to DOS based OS customers.

I don't know how to express this, but you need to comprehend what I have said, might I add, more than one time already:[quote author=vee_ess link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#8 date=06/11/02 at 22:06:58]The next MS server OS will be Windows .NET Server. It is basically just Windows XP Server because it is based off the same platform, SDK Platform. [/quote][quote author=vee_ess link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#10 date=06/13/02 at 01:34:13]And I just want to emphasize this point: the server OS that will be coming out will not be based on XP (read what I said again), but it will be based off the same platform.[/quote][quote author=Mighty_Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#11 date=06/13/02 at 16:10:18]You say :
WinNT kernel -> Win2K kernel -> Win XP kernel -> Winster Srv kernel

the thing is :
WinNT kernel -> Win2K kernel -> Winster Srv kernel

XP is on different production line.[/quote]Here is actually what I have been trying to get across:
[table][tr][td]NT4 Kernel[/td][td]NT5/2000 Kernel  [/td][td]Modified 2000 Kernel[/td][/tr][tr][td]Windows NT 4.0   [/td][td]Windows 2000[/td][td]Windows XP[/td][/tr][tr][td]NT Server[/td][td]2000 Server[/td][td].NET Server[/td][/tr][/table]

Click this if you still don't believe me that Windows XP and .NET Server are based on the same platform... They directly say:

And at the heart of the .NET platform for knowledge workers, business users, and consumers lies the new client operating system, Windows XP.

Then you go a to the next page talking about the platform and you read:

It is this simple premise that drives the .NET platform and underlies how Windows XP sits at the center of your data and information.

(Notice that in each & every quote used Microsoft says it, not me)


[quote author=Mighty_Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#11 date=06/13/02 at 16:10:18]For a conclusion :
I cannot assume that mr vee_ess is 100% wrong but he is very inaccurate in his super-information spreading.[/quote]Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions. This information comes directly off of Microsoft.com and if you feel that Microsoft is inaccurate, I suggest that you directly get in contact with them and let them know you feel that they are wrong...
[quote author=Mighty_Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#11 date=06/13/02 at 16:10:18]Personal note for mr vee_ess : You can behave here the way you want as far as moderators don't care about. But if you will show your disgusting manners at Binarytalk.com forums[/quote]I just want to say again: Don't make this personal, I'm not. Also, you say I have disgusting manners, but at least I have respect. And maturity is just as important for that matter.
[quote author=Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#3 date=05/28/02 at 16:28:57]
One PM is on the way for mr. serious
[/quote][quote author=Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#5 date=05/30/02 at 10:20:11]
that's just not your damn business  

have fun
[/quote]
If you call these manners, I guess mine are disgusting. There are more examples if you want, but I feel that continuing this bickery and set of personal attacks is pure nonsense.
[quote author=Mighty_Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#11 date=06/13/02 at 16:10:18]our moderators would take all legal actions & hunt your ass badly. Then you'll face some facts  >[/quote]Threats aren't a good way of trying to convince someone of something. Also, I haven't heard of your forums til you told me, obviously - so, basically, stop pointing the finger (it is a blatant attempt at my credibility). Try keepin it clean

That's it  
I'm really too tired to continue this useless row between me and mr vee_ess (I didn't start it but I'll do stop for sure).
I see no reason to waste my precious time trying to settle personal relationships instead of having some quality "tech talk". Unfortunately, it seems for me like this place is loosing its charm turning from professional Tech Forums to "general computer stuff" forums and that's just sad...

One thing, however. Mr vee_ess claims :

you say I have disgusting manners, but at least I have respect. And maturity is just as important for that matter.

That's just funny because two days ago he suggested here his help in black/mass-mailing and virus-spreading against certain individual (http://www.netsmog.net/cgi-bin/yabb/...num=1024013865), I assume he was trying to help, but obviously picked the dumbest (& also not quite legal) way.

Can you actually say you care for your manners or dignity or professionalism after such suggestion ?
Don't you think you've compromised by that other respective forum members and moderators ?


I leave only because no longer want share this forum with certain member. I've tried things but seems like some people just too stupid not piss me off after I've nicely asked for that several times.

Thanks for all members for quality time. Hope to see you again some day later ...
I wish Keefe would get back his hijacked domain and things would be cool again.

Regards

Mighty Chef
Binarica.com

iIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIi

[MIK3]

Dude...no need to get "butt hurt" over this whole conversation...i mean cmon it obviously looks like vee_ess put alot of time into his response...and i took the time to read it and i feel that the information is one of the best that ive seen on this site..and the most thourough as well! I dont like the fact however that you know that he is right and choose not to corectly respond, but instead try to put him down and make others feel sympathetic for you.  His little "illegal" comment was obvioulsy put down on a formal, joking note...if u continue on reading that same thread you will find that many of us put down netwurx.net, and i feel that u shouldnt target a certain member in that case...as for leaving this forum...i feel that that is very cowardly...no offense!  But when i first joined these forums...i knew very little and got various amounts of remarks from almost everbody!  But that didnt make me want to leave this forum...it only made me stronger and more eager to learn more and show that i actually had something to say in ths site!  I wasnt about to let them drive me off...im not that kinda person...but if you are gonna let one person shoo you away from this site mearley because he was representing shear facts of Microsoft and that he knows disputing is obvioulsly going to be a part of this forum...i feel that you are doing a wrong thing...but then again i guess that is your call...and good luck at your site Binarica.com...im guessing that that was your last Cheers, so see you in the future....