|
|
|
re: W2K vs XP?'
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 at 12:06 pm Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Roddy
(1 messages posted)
The honest truth, I'm STUCK... Love Win2k, is easy to work with and extremely stable.
But XP makes life so much easier and it does work right except for when something
crashes or you try non-approved software. My vote goes to 2k because of it's performance.
PERIOD...
On Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 9:47 pm, Alan Snider wrote:
>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
>
>
- Written in response to:
- re: W2K vs XP?' (A Snider: Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 9:47 pm)
Responses to this message:
|
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  |  | re: W2K vs XP?' (Roddy: Wed, Mar 19, 2003, 12:06 pm) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|