|
|
|
re: W2K vs XP?'
Wednesday, November 23, 2005 at 9:25 pm
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Naveen Gupta
(1 messages posted)
Using Norton with W2k is certainly good till the crashing of norton. I used both
w2k and xp with norton, trend micro, etrust, etc. Definitely norton is best with
w2k, but there are some cases when norton automatically crashed, effect of this was
limited to installing other software and connecting to the net.
But till now, I can't understand that when to use w2k and when 2 use xp. Both work
with same performance.
If anybody has any idea for product selection on this, then it will be helpful for
all.
On Friday, June 3, 2005 at 9:47 am, John Jamieson wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
- Written in response to:
- re: W2K vs XP?' (John Jamieson: Friday, June 3, 2005 at 9:47 am)
Responses to this message:
|
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  |  | re: W2K vs XP?' (Naveen Gupta: Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 9:25 pm) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
