ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of
> Bigboy9955@aol.com
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 5:25 AM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like
> W98SE?

> I don't run a business or NT workstations and already run WinMe,
> which to my
> understanding is the consumer version of Windows 2000
> Professional.

Internally they are vastly different. Only the GUI is the same.

> My point
> was that maybe MS is pushing 2000 because of its price tag
> ($300?) or more?

This is news to me. It's always been my perception that Microsoft has never
pushed 2000 on consumers. It is intended for the office and advanced users
who need to use a lot of memory and processing power. Microsoft is planning
a new release of its operating system that will finally truly merge the
consumer level product with the office product, and will be scalable for
different classes of users (there will still be price differentials for home
and office use). Windows 2000 is already "scalable" (actually "configurable"
would be a better term). There is 2000 Professional for the workstation, and
2000 Server and Advanced Server for IT, and these three different 2000
configurations have different price points. You don't even want to run 2000
Server on the Desktop because it is not tuned to perform well on a
workstation but on a server, serving hundreds of workstations on a LAN.

> I think it is a case of the "latest and greatest" syndrome even if all
> (most?) of us don't need it.

Photoshop is really not a consumer-level product, and truly does benefit
from Windows 2000.

> Rob already pointed out that 2000,
> WinMe, and
> 98SE all have the same color management.

This has nothing to do with performance and responsiveness, which is where
using Windows 2000 will pay off using Photoshop.

  WinMe runs fine for me
> and doesn't
> crash at all.  I'm basically trying to let someone convince me
> why 2000 is
> better than WinMe, but I may not be "professional" enough to understand.
> Ed

Hope this helps.

Frank Paris
marshalt@spiritone.com
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.