advertisement

Article:
  Windows XP from a Mac Perspective
Subject:   Networking simplicity? Not.
Date:   2002-02-13 09:34:54
From:   dogbert
I know you think that XP has improved networking capabilities, but this isn't anything new over what windows 2000 had. Don't forget, windows 2000 and windows XP are pretty much the same at heart. The major difference between xp and windows 2000 is that xp has a "pretty" (if you can call it that) interface and a bunch of wizards.


If you don't believe me about networking being simple, try this: set up a network connection using a static ip address for your home. Go to work and set up a network connection using dhcp. go back and forth between home and work and tell me how fun it is to constantly reconfigure your network settings from static ip to dhcp every time you change locations.


OSX definitely has it over on XP for networking capabilities as well.


Also, I'd like to point out that XP has serious compatibility issues with things like sql server 2000 enterprise manager ( a ms app) and other development tools.


SO take it as you will, but xp is more of a toy operating system than a serious one. Your friend was right to poo poo about the xp. He uses 2000 which in my tests has proven far more stable and reliable (not to mention compatible) than xp. Sad since they're the same kernel and core.
Full Threads Newest First

Showing messages 1 through 4 of 4.

  • Networking simplicity? Not.
    2002-02-13 10:27:57  mchiang [Reply | View]

    W2K has the netsh command line tool to configure networks without rebooting. I have a ThinkPad that I use at home with a hardware VPN (static) and on the work network (DHCP). I have a couple batch scripts that use netsh to configure for each network.

    Still, this pales in comparison to the Mac OS X location manager. Dang simple.
    • Derrick Story photo Networking simplicity? Not.
      2002-02-13 11:04:12  Derrick Story | O'Reilly AuthorO'Reilly Blogger [Reply | View]

      I think the points in this "networking" thread are well-taken, and I'd like to hear more about XP connectivity from other readers -- pro or con.

      As for the Mac OS X Network Control Panel, I can sum up my feelings about it this way: I love it!

      With OS X I feel comfortable taking my PowerBook into any networking situation and being able to connect quickly and easily.

      There's only one situation where current OS X technology seems to come up short networking-wise. There isn't a PPTP client yet that allows us to use Point to Point Tunneling Protocol on a specific type of secure network. Even then, sometimes we can use ssh via the Terminal Application to get the job done. But a better solution would be straight-up PPTP access.

      Hopefully we'll see that soon ...
    • Try Netswitcher
      2002-02-13 16:52:46  banji [Reply | View]

      I am not a Windows user at heart, but like many, I have to use it.
      I have found that a shareware app called "Netswitcher" makes life a lot easier when switching between network settings in 2000. It works a lot like "location manager."

      Find it at <www.netswitcher.com>


      Banji
  • Networking simplicity? Not.
    2003-09-03 17:12:18  anonymous2 [Reply | View]

    In XP you can set up differing network profiles for exactly that situation, you can do similar in W2K using hardware profiles. Read the help files.