Naturally, I also used AmigaOS since version 1.2, and every version of Windows since Win95 and NT4.
Would that include MS Windows Server 2003?
I don’t think any of the Amiga based OS can deliver the solution that Windows Server 2003 delivers.
I've tried about 20 different OS's. I worked on two versions of UNIX, as well as VMS as a computer science student (and hated every second of it).
Same thing while at Uni, but VMS is not that bad. VMS is not targeted for desktop OS market. The cost of corresponding hardware (Alpha AXP box) will indicate that.
Mac hardware has always been a total ripoff, so MacOS X is not an option.
Note that MacOS X’s core is extremely Unix based. No different to other Unix clones in the market. Its WIMP component is the one that sets this OS from other Unix clones in the market.
I have use MacOS X and loved it. Two bad it’s not running on a cheap X86 box. The price of Apple’s hardware would be the stumbling block. IF you factor in the weaker Australian dollar (compared to the US dollar) the problem is magnified. Count yourself lucky, at least you live within the mighty US dollar.
Almost every machine I use at work runs NT4, and I must have re-installed Win95 about 50 times, so I'm quite familiar with that system.
In terms stability and the number of available services, Win95 is a long way from Win2k/WinXP/Win2003. Note that, to address some issues of Windows 95, a Windows 2K style system protection was included within Windows ME.
Why harking back to Win95/WinNT4 days?
Hell, Windows still doesn't allow a method for defining paths properly, a feat easily achieved with the Amiga "Assign" command.
On the same token there are many things that AmigaOS can't do compared Windows 2K/XP/2003.
The designers of Windows (David Cutler and co) may not see that (i.e. AmigaOS's 'assign' method) as a need. Careful with feature vs feature point scoring, as such it’s open to counter arguments.
The Windows "Subst" command doesn't cut it, and makes lots of apps freak out.
Why would you do that within Windows XP/2003?
Of all of these, OS/2 and AmigaOS were the only ones I actually liked, and I still have issues with OS/2.
Note that Windows NT was a half brother** of OS/2(they have a common origin). Initially OS/2 was co-develop by Microsoft and IBM.
Too bad Microsoft is just loading up all their systems with spam, scams, and backdoors these days.
With Windows 2003, the security has been beefed up (e.g. deactivation web based scripts). It can reactivate its web-based scripts by user’s selected websites. For example; I permitted Win2003's IE to run all the web based scripts just for *.amiga.org.
Note that, WinXP’s SP2 is currently in beta testing.
They have too much incentive to add new features that appeal to market slime, so even putting a pop-up blocker in IE is too much to ask.
Have you tried Windows 2003's IE 6.0.3790?
The future of Windows may be dim,
The Window way is fine due to Linux's WINE/WINEX.
Linux itself only has ~5 percent of the desktop market.
but don't think for a second that MS doesn't have a "new" system based on .NET and XML in the near future. Heaven help us.
What's wrong with dotNET and XML?
