re: W2K vs XP?'
Tuesday, November 11, 2008 at 10:45 pm Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by bugmenott
(13 messages posted)
Choosing is easy.
If you're willing to disobey the rules imposed by the allmighty dictator Steve Ballmer.
You might choose XP, Vista or Linux/Mac.
If OTOH you're a sheep that can't think anything but what Steve Ballmer approves.
Then you MUST use win2k.
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?' (bugmenott: Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 10:45 pm) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum
|
|