Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Jan 2010 16:26 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft presented the results for its second quarter of the 2010 fiscal year yesterday, which ended on December 29 2009. As it turns out, thanks to sales of Windows 7, Microsoft experienced a record quarter, which is especially welcome after the previous two lacklustre ones. It sold 60 million Windows 7 licenses during this record quarter.
Thread beginning with comment 406726
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

True, but anyone who runs windows xp as a server OS is crazy. Its a desktop OS, its pretty safe to assume when talking about a desktop os what anything we say about it is referring to its intended use as a desktop OS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

True, but anyone who runs windows xp as a server OS is crazy. Its a desktop OS, its pretty safe to assume when talking about a desktop os what anything we say about it is referring to its intended use as a desktop OS.


Nope, people still try it. Qualifying your statement makes it explicit what you are talking about (yes, you do have to be accurate on a forum such as this).

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No they don't. Its not the intended purpose of the product. No one who understands the difference between a server and a desktop was confused by that sentence.


Do you really want all of us to be *that* specific? If so we'll have to start saying all of the following:

Microsoft Windows => windows can be generic computing term

Apple Computer company => as opposed to the Beatles Apple Recording company
Fedora Linux => as oppoosed to a hat
Intel Corperation => as opposed to a term for intelligence
Adobe Flash => as opposed to a form of flash memory.
Apple Computer company's iPhone => as opposed to the Cisco iPhone I have on my desk ;)

I'm sure there are many more I'm forgetting. Technobable does get confusing at some point with the acronyms and marketing terms getting recycled and used in different contexts, but this really isn't one of those examples.

In order for us to communicate, we have to assume some level of information, otherwise each post would exceed the max number of characters just laying down the prerequisite assumptions, backgrounds and history behind all of the forthcoming terms. That's absurd. You must simply assume that a product is going to be used as intended by the manufacturer unless there is a significant reason to assume otherwise.

I'm starting to wonder if you just misread his post at first and thought that XP was generic for Microsoft Windows, which then would have made sense to respond with a clarification citing the overlooked server market.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Nope, people still try it. Qualifying your statement makes it explicit what you are talking about (yes, you do have to be accurate on a forum such as this).


No he doesn't when he is talking about an OS that is designed for the desktop. It has a tcp/ip connection limit after all.

Everyone here knew what he was talking about, including you.

Reply Parent Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

True, but anyone who runs windows xp as a server OS is crazy. Its a desktop OS, its pretty safe to assume when talking about a desktop os what anything we say about it is referring to its intended use as a desktop OS.


Depends what your needs are. Would you really install Windows Server 2003 if all you need is a simple file server and to share a single printer (and you didn't know anything about configuring/using Samba/CUPS)? Or would you just install XP, share a folder, install the printer drivers, and share the printer?

If you need a simple box to run a single file share to house an Access database that will be used by multiple people, would you go to the effort of installing/configuring/managing a server version of Windows? Or just install XP, install Office, and share a folder? (Yes, we do this, for that one stupid Access database ... personally, I think Access should be nuked!)

Just because it's a "server" doesn't mean it needs a server-optimised OS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


If you need a simple box to run a single file share to house an Access database that will be used by multiple people, would you go to the effort of installing/configuring/managing a server version of Windows? Or just install XP, install Office, and share a folder? (Yes, we do this, for that one stupid Access database ... personally, I think Access should be nuked!)

Just because it's a "server" doesn't mean it needs a server-optimised OS.


You can only share with 10 users at a time, and that's in xp pro. With home you are limited to 5. It's a desktop OS that comes with limited network sharing capabilities. It isn't a server OS.

Reply Parent Score: 2