|
|
|
re: W2K vs XP?'
Friday, June 3, 2005 at 9:47 am
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by John Jamieson
(1 messages posted)
I have a MSDN licence for all MS's OS's. And the one I use most is still Win2000.
The only downsides I've found is less compatibility with a few OLD games, and a perception
of a slightly slower boot.
I hear if you have a multi CPU machine, XP is slightly more efficent, but I have
no firsthand knowlege of this.
Personally, I am using Linux more all the time (Mandrake), and though I know so little
about it compared to the windows world, it has been suprisingly rewarding.
I can do a full install with everything I use day to day in 15-20 min, instead of
5+hours to install Windows, plus zonealarm, plus spybot and adaware, plus AVG plus
OS updates, plus motherboard drivers, plus videocard drivers.(my standard implementation
for a standalone home pc)
I notice some people using the norton products for security. My experiences with
these has been that they are resource hogs. We cut boot times 30% on one PC by replacing
these with the above mentioned FREE security packages.
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:
|
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  | re: W2K vs XP?' (John Jamieson: Fri, Jun 3, 2005, 9:47 am) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
