|
|
|
re: W2K vs XP?'
Saturday, January 14, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by J
(5 messages posted)
Personally, having grown up with geo, dos, win3.1, 3.11, 98, ME, 2000, and now have
a machine with XP on it, I much prefer Win2000. I have it on two of my machines,
both with slightly slower cpu's, and less memory than my third with XP Home. The
two older machines far outperform the one with XP. Seems like the XP system eats
up much more of the available RAM, slowing it down considerably. If all you do is
cruise the web, email, play the occasional older game, 2K is the only way to go.
On Wednesday, November 23, 2005 at 9:25 pm, Naveen Gupta wrote:
>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.
>
>
- Written in response to:
- re: W2K vs XP?' (Naveen Gupta: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 at 9:25 pm)
There are presently no replies to this message.
|
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  | |  | re: W2K vs XP?' (J: Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 7:01 pm) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
