HOME
TOPICS
ABOUT ME
MAIL

 
Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows Me are unreliable in the extreme. But Windows 2000 is reliable and trustworthy -- when it is protected by a good firewall and good antivirus software.
  technofile
Al Fasoldt's reviews and commentaries, continuously available online since 1983

T e c h n o f i l e
Why this Mac 'Switcher' still admires Windows 2000


April 27, 2003


By Al Fasoldt
Copyright © 2003, Al Fasoldt
Copyright © 2003, The Post-Standard

   My fondness for Apple's newest Macs has increased my respect for Windows.
   As odd as this may seem, I'm a "Switcher" -- a Windows user who gave his heart and soul over to the Mac -- who has learned how to appreciate the strengths and advantages of Windows 2000. It gets my vote as the best current version of Windows.
   Let me explain. The last "old" version of Windows is Windows 2000, designed to be a standard high-quality operating system. The version that followed, Windows XP, is the first "new" incarnation of Microsoft's operating system. Whereas Windows 2000 does a good job doing normal things, Windows XP does a good job doing what I consider abnormal things -- "phoning home" to tell Microsoft when you installed XP, for example.
   XP does a much better job of supporting Windows games than Windows 2000 does, and it has better support for new peripherals (scanners and printers, that kind of thing). But that doesn't convince me that XP is better.
   I'm not a game player, so I'm not attracted to Windows XP for games. As for how well my peripherals might work under Windows XP, I honestly don't care. I keep a Windows 98 computer around to make sure I can scan and print no matter what. If I can't do what I want on my Windows 2000 PC or my Mac OS X computer, I know my old Windows 98 PC should be able to handle it.
   I do as much of my work as possible on my Mac. For me, the Unix-based operating system that powers modern Macintoshes is a joy to work with and a delight to the eye. To me, the Mac OS X interface is superbly designed.
   Then why do I use Windows at all? And what's all this about respect?
   I use Windows for one primary reason -- to handle mail and my personal documents. The software that does this is Microsoft Outlook. (It's not Outlook Express. In no way is it Outlook Express. Outlook is a totally different program.)
   I use Outlook 2000, which I consider the best version of Outlook yet. I refuse to upgrade to Outlook XP because Microsoft denuded Outlook XP of some features that make Outlook 2000 very powerful, and I even recommend that anyone who buys Outlook XP "downgrade" to Outlook 2000.
   (Microsoft provides "downgrades" for some of its programs. Go to this site for more information -- and, yes, the odd capitalization is part of the address: www.microsoft.com/PERMISSION/copyrgt/cop-soft.htm#Downgrades.)
   Outlook 2000 is much more than a program that does e-mail. The document-management functions in Outlook 2000 set it apart from any other software for Windows -- or for Mac OS X. And that's why I use Windows alongside my Apple G4 computer. Integrating my personal documents and schedule with all the mail I get -- hundreds of letters a day, even after all the spam is taken out -- is not an option. It's a necessity.
   (Entourage X, the Outlook-like program Microsoft created for Mac OS X, can't do what Outlook 2000 does, even though it's a good try. I'll explain where Entourage stumbles, and what Mac users might do to get around those weaknesses, in a future Mac OS X column. My OS X articles run in The Post-Standard every Wednesday.)
   Outlook 2000 runs around the clock on my Windows 2000 PC. So do my Web browsers and my word processors and a dozen other programs that are vital to the kind of work I do in my home office. They run without a problem. Windows 2000 does not crash and does not run out of memory.
   To longtime Mac and Linux users, this is faint praise. Operating systems should not crash and should not run out of memory. But it's how previous versions of Windows have misbehaved for years. Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows Me are unreliable in the extreme. But Windows 2000 is reliable and trustworthy -- when it is protected by a good firewall and good antivirus software.
   My Mac, with its Unix-based operating system, is a pleasure to use and is immune to Windows worms, viruses and security lapses. But knowing that I can get so much of my mail and personal organization done on a stable version of Windows keeps my hopes up. Perhaps someday Microsoft will get it right.
   A version of Windows that does not try to keep tabs on my personal life and is inherently resistant to hacker attacks and viruses would make a worthy competitor for Apple's OS X. And Mac OS X software that could handle my mail and documents the way Outlook 2000 does would help, too. I'll keep looking.