Is Windows coming out w/ new version anytime soon?

I'm about to buy a new computer. I'd hate to buy now and then have new version come out. Anyone know anything? Also, does anyone know the basic difference between XP and 2000?

yup... they designed it back in '99 but they are just releasing it now:


however, on a more serious note, the new version of windows is called 'Longhorn'... you can get more info on it <a href = "http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha.asp">HERE</a> and you could probably get more info on google too...

Just because a new version of Windows comes out doesn't mean you have to upgrade right away, and you probably shouldn't anway...

Just look at Windows 98. It took a couple of years for '98SE to come out and fix most of '98s original problems. Windows Millennium Edition was practically abandoned as soon as the CDs were pressed, and WindowsXP, now 4 years later, still doesn't have an official release of a service pack to make it stable.

Bleeding-edge hardware & software doesn't always mean it's the best.

The basic difference between XP and 2K. 2K is pretty quick, solid & stable. XP is ugly, a resource hog, and falls over regularly (not as regularly as Win98, but when it goes down, it goes down 10x harder)

Supposedly their was a rumor that their was going to be an in-between release before longhorn.

Apparently they are actually planning to do this, but there really aren't any details about it that aren't rumors. It is called XP reloaded. How clever and unique, huh?

And just a little more info...

I have tested 3 different "builds" of Longhorn and they are almost identical to XP except for the nice GUI and some little improvements, so i would just tick with windows XP

Probably good reason to believe it isn't the best. Wait until the new version has come out, got over it's teething problems (and if you believe microsoft may get it right first time - think again). For the stability problems you will get, what is a few whistles and bells as compensation?

The only thing that would convince me to get a newer version of windows than 2k is rumours about ie7, but thats being discussed elsewhere....

Well i think that Windows 2000 is the fastest and best for hosting thats just my opinion though..

for a server, it is pretty good

for a webserver linux is tough to beat

I take exception to that. I have been using Windows servers for close to three years for webservers and I have had no issues with them whatsoever. The only downside is they are more expensive, because they don't rely on open source software, and hence the cost is greater. But for efficiency, I have only had 2 periods of short down time on any Windows server I've hosted on including my current work, and the time I had a problem with work was when I caused it by entering a wrong DNS entry. In fact, I prefer coding Jmail vs trying to do formmail perl scripts or phpmail. Jmail is just easy to me.

Besides, I like the fact that you can use ASP with Windows and PHP if needed where you can't use ASP with Linux (at least not to my knowledge -- it wouldn't bother me if someone corrected me if I'm wrong on that).

well, that is good that you haven't had any problems with it. I just think that linux would be good because most distros come with mysql and php...plus it is free. Maybe I should reconsider about linux being the best server.

I am pretty sure that my host uses active server pages, and they use linux.

I found something on suns sight, and it says that this particular software is compatible with kernel 2.4 as well and rh7.2 and suse8.0(i think)

I don't know much about ASP, so maybe I am way off

heres the link http://wwws.sun.com/software/chilisoft/

You're right Vladdrac. I did forget about chilisoft. However, I do doubt there's a solution to .Net on linux yet. Don't get me wrong. I am currently hosting sites on linux servers and love them. I also find PHP easy to use, and enjoy and promote the open source free thing as much as the next guy. But often we tend to this Windows just because it's Windows. Trust me, Bill Gates didn't get to be the richest man in the world because Windows was a bad product. (He is still the richest man in the world isn't he?) Just playing devil's advocate a bit here.

Yeah, I totally agree with you. Up until about a month ago windows was the only os that I have ever had any experience with(with the exception of a macintosh in my freshman year of high school....91). Microsoft is a quality os, and there applications are solid as well. I couldn't play hardly any games without it. (Although I am starting to see a lot of next generation games that are becoming compatible with linux...Unreal Tournament 2004)

But I am going to try to migrate away from windows as much as possible. Not because I hate microsoft, but because It is becoming way too easy to use...and I need to get back to learning and understanding exactly how an os works and operates. This is what unix systems offer me.

acutually Atno he became the richest man in the worls becuase IBM failed to make the microsoft liscence exclusive to IBM such as Mac did with there OS. that said at the begining of the comp age it was the best alternative with windowd 3.x. one thing led to another and every company began to use micosoft and it became the standard. im sure there are other factors im unaware of and please correct me if i am wrong but i think thats how it went .

Are those production servers on the Internet, or part of a closed Intranet?

You're right, it's because he's got a great marketing team, and there's too many inexperienced people out there who've never heard of Linux.

New people buy a PC in the store, it comes with Windows. There's a new Micro$oft customer. 99% of those people have never heard of Linux, and the store employee certainly isn't going to explain it to them.

That's how Billy Boy is the richest guy on the planet (or is he?).

I don't know, I heard rumours that he's #2 now, but I don't know.