re: Windows 2000 vs. XP
Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 1:08 pm
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Scott Wilson
(3 messages posted)
Thanks for the food for thought.
I would love to do Windows 2000 server, but we are a non-profit and have very limited
funds.
On Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 12:56 pm, Curt R wrote:
>I haven't played with XP yet, but I can recommend 2000. I've found it to be
a
>very stable OS. I'm sure XP is as well and from what I've heard from friends that
>are now using it, it's a good OS. I think you may have some serious trouble getting
>either 2000 or XP to run on such old hardware. You can go to microsofts web site
>and read the spec's on system requirements for both operating systems and peruse
>their HCL (hardware compatibility list) to see if your present equipment is capable
>of running either OS. I highly recommend you check the HCL and minimum system requirements
>before you purchase anything, you will likely find you can't run either OS without
>upgrading hardware first. I wanted to ask, have you given any thought to upgrading
>your server? 2000 server is far superior to NT 4.0
>
>
>On Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 12:21 pm, Scott Wilson wrote:
>I am managing an office of 35 users. Most of us are still using Win95/98.
>It's time to upgrade. We are planning upgrade to W2k or XP. We will most likely
>be using Office XP (as we get non-profit pricing). Our Domain server is NT 6 (sp6a).
>
>
>Does anyone have any thoughts on which OS would better suit us? My experience with
>W2K is that it is pretty stable. I am already overworked as it is and want the
>least
>amount of problems to work with. How is XP with older hardware 3,4,5 years old
>hardware?
>
>TIA
>
- Written in response to:
- re: Windows 2000 vs. XP (Curt R: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 12:56 pm)
There are presently no replies to this message.
|
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  |  | re: Windows 2000 vs. XP (Scott Wilson: Tue, Feb 12, 2002, 1:08 pm) |
|
