W2K vs XP?'
Friday, September 6, 2002 at 12:24 pm Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by brian slater
(1 messages posted)
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
|
Responses to this message:
|
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 | W2K vs XP?' (brian slater: Fri, Sep 6, 2002, 12:24 pm) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum
|
|