Annoyances.org
Home » Windows 2000 Discussion Forum » Message 1031892449 Search | Help | Home
  
re: W2K vs XP?'
Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 9:47 pm
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by A Snider (21 messages posted)


Is that a crack about ISP nerds?

Honestly though, unless your ISP is using NAT or a proxy server, then you have a 
public IP add which is hanging out there for any jerk to ping at, or attempt to enter 
your backorifice or whatever. Your only recourse is a good firewall, which you already 
have done.

Regarding XP vs 2K, to tell you the truth my experience has been just the opposite. 
XP Pro has been rock-solid, while the 2K machine has been nothing but a pain (blue-screens, 
rebooting, leaving db files opened, etcetc). As much as I hate to admit it publicly, 
I like XP better, and it's not just because it's pretty. And I still use NT4 Server 
too, see no reason to replace something that's worked so well for 4-5 years.

Well, that's one man's opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

Alan





On Friday, September 6, 2002 at 12:24 pm, brian slater wrote: >I have a question about What's >the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?:

> >I heard a lot of bad things so far about XP, wont load software it doesnt like (has >to be M$ certified), it crashes and locks up badly and worst of all you give M$ control >over your PC > >I have upgrade from W98 after years of regular crashes and unreliable performance >(thank goodness for Norton System Works, you cannot be without it on W98) > >My observation so far is that W2K is far more stable and fault tolerant. It pretty >much works like a dream (excep for some bad software from the Multimedia industry >- very flaky stuff. But I did get a megacrash and it wiped out the OS. I had to buy >an additional harddrive and reinstall. This was cause by my trying to fit a Matrox >AGP video card (they didnt bother to say get the latest drivers before installation. > However, 2 weeks work down the drain (not data, which i revovered, but reinstallation >of apps) > >That aside, W2K does seem ok. Ive now got to go to great lengths to protect is from >the net. Get mozilla, and a different mailer, I am told. Ive got Norton Firewall, >Is it good enough. Ive had several backorifice attempts alarmed. Its strange that >these only occur in the wee small hours? I suspect some little nerd in my ISP playing >around on the night shift. Do you agree? > >Grateful for your comments, to share is to support the common cause > >Brian >




Written in response to:
W2K vs XP?' (brian slater: Friday, September 6, 2002 at 12:24 pm)

Responses to this message:
*re: W2K vs XP?' (Roddy: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 at 12:06 pm)

All messages in this thread [show all]
-W2K vs XP?' (brian slater: Fri, Sep 6, 2002, 12:24 pm)
-re: W2K vs XP?' (A Snider: Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 9:47 pm)
-re: W2K vs XP?' (Roddy: Wed, Mar 19, 2003, 12:06 pm)
-re: W2K vs XP?' (TDP: Wed, Apr 30, 2003, 11:46 am)
*re: W2K vs XP?' (David Gagnon: Mon, Jan 31, 2005, 9:59 pm)
*re: W2K vs XP?' (factotum218: Fri, Apr 22, 2005, 5:19 pm)
-re: W2K vs XP?' (John Jamieson: Fri, Jun 3, 2005, 9:47 am)
-re: W2K vs XP?' (Sythem: Mon, Jun 6, 2005, 6:40 pm)
-re: W2K vs XP?' (Peter Griffin: Mon, Aug 29, 2005, 7:06 pm)
*re: W2K vs XP?' (J: Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 7:11 pm)
-re: W2K vs XP?' (Naveen Gupta: Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 9:25 pm)
*re: W2K vs XP?' (J: Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 7:01 pm)
*re: W2K vs XP?' (Jude Nihal Fernando: Fri, Dec 1, 2006, 6:36 pm)
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum

All content at Annoyances.org is Copyright © 1995-2008 Creative Elementtm All rights reserved.
Please do not plagiarize; redistributing these pages without permission is strictly prohibited.