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

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Is that a crack about ISP nerds?

Honestly though, unless your ISP is using NAT or a proxy server, then you have a 
public IP add which is hanging out there for any jerk to ping at, or attempt to enter 
your backorifice or whatever. Your only recourse is a good firewall, which you already 
have done.

Regarding XP vs 2K, to tell you the truth my experience has been just the opposite. 
XP Pro has been rock-solid, while the 2K machine has been nothing but a pain (blue-screens, 
rebooting, leaving db files opened, etcetc). As much as I hate to admit it publicly, 
I like XP better, and it's not just because it's pretty. And I still use NT4 Server 
too, see no reason to replace something that's worked so well for 4-5 years.

Well, that's one man's opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

Alan






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
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

The honest truth, I'm STUCK... Love Win2k, is easy to work with and extremely stable. But XP makes life so much easier and it does work right except for when something crashes or you try non-approved software. My vote goes to 2k because of it's performance. PERIOD...


On Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 9:47 pm, Alan Snider wrote:

>Is that a crack about ISP nerds?
>
>Honestly though, unless your ISP is using NAT or a proxy server, then you have a 
>public IP add which is hanging out there for any jerk to ping at, or attempt to 
enter 
>your backorifice or whatever. Your only recourse is a good firewall, which you already 
>have done.
>
>Regarding XP vs 2K, to tell you the truth my experience has been just the opposite. 
>XP Pro has been rock-solid, while the 2K machine has been nothing but a pain (blue-screens, 
>rebooting, leaving db files opened, etcetc). As much as I hate to admit it publicly, 
>I like XP better, and it's not just because it's pretty. And I still use NT4 Server 
>too, see no reason to replace something that's worked so well for 4-5 years.
>
>Well, that's one man's opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
>
>Alan
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

hmm. i like XP because of its interface. 2k is ok, but it doesn't like Norton Firewall. other than that, i dont really notice a difference if you want a stable OS for simple tasks, Dual boot with Linux... run games etc on Win, and Office apps etc on Linux. i recommend either Debian linux (www.debian.org) or Redhat Linux (www.redhat.com)

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Totally agree. You can even run many win32 applications under Linux using WINE so the need to reboot to windows might be only for games really... Linux is a rock-solid OS, it can run without rebooting for MONTHS (or more). Give Mandrake Linux (www.mandrakelinux.com) a try, it's more user-friendly and very up-to-date. I've been running Linux for about 5 years now and there's no way I'm going back to Microsoft hell!! ;)


On Wednesday, April 30, 2003 at 11:46 am, TDP wrote:
>hmm. i like XP because of its interface. 2k is ok, but it doesn't like Norton Firewall.
>other than that, i dont really notice a difference
>
>if you want a stable OS for simple tasks, Dual boot with Linux...
>
>run games etc on Win, and Office apps etc on Linux.
>
>i recommend either Debian linux (www.debian.org) or Redhat Linux (www.redhat.com)

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I have personaly stuck with 2000 pro. Its what I have been running since I wrote the check the day it hit the shelves. Havent had any problems with stability or having to reinstall. Okay I have reinstalled twice but that has been in the last few years, not months or weeks (ah, the pre-SE 98 days....). The main reason is that XP is everywhere else. I use it at work, I know enough people to know where its availible if I really must use it which hasn't happened yet; its still at the stage of personal prefrence instead of actual need for XP. If you think its worth it, do it.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

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
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I personally having used all but win2K pretty extensively still perfer my win98. Linux being too complicated for most people and XP just being a resource hog. Though for anyone computer savey and has a highspeed connection might want to give linux a try for everything other than most video games thought the ones that have been ported to linux run wonderfully compaired to any win distro if the kernel has configured for that computer. Not to mention it's free.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I have windows xp professional and windows 2000 professional and I think 2000 is better, in fact I downgraded to windows 2000. Besides who care if you don't get the built in firewall, because the microsoft firewal sucks anyway, you can just download a way better firewall for free like I did. I really enjoy windows 2000 professional its just more simple, you can still play games on it and everything, windows xp just looks a little different and besides you can download a XP skin for windows 2000. I have also seen Windows Vista, it looks sucky, I am going to stay with 2000 until I am forced to upgrade because its just faster. And my computer is 2.93 ghz 760 mb or ram 80 gig hdd and 64 mb video card and I bought it with XP and then downgraded to 2000 and I saw a big performance increase and web pages seem to load fasters too. You can still use all the good programs offerd to XP like firefox, Windows Media, nero, etrust antivirus, power dvd etc. I think windows 2000 is the way to go , I HIGHLY RECCOMENT WINDOWS 2000 PROFESSIONAL OVER XP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

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.
>
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

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.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Would like to downgrade my machine as well from XP, to 2000. The machine came equipped with XP. Any suggestions or tips?


On Monday, August 29, 2005 at 7:06 pm, Peter Griffin wrote:
>
>I have windows xp professional and windows 2000 professional and I think 2000 is
>better, in fact I downgraded to windows 2000. Besides who care if you don't get the
>built in firewall, because the microsoft firewal sucks anyway, you can just download
>a way better firewall for free like I did. I really enjoy windows 2000 professional
>its just more simple, you can still play games on it and everything, windows xp just
>looks a little different and besides you can download a XP skin for windows 2000.
>I have also seen Windows Vista, it looks sucky, I am going to stay with 2000 until
>I am forced to upgrade because its just faster. And my computer is 2.93 ghz 760 mb
>or ram 80 gig hdd and 64 mb video card and I bought it with XP and then downgraded
>to 2000 and I saw a big performance increase and web pages seem to load fasters too.
>You can still use all the good programs offerd to XP like firefox, Windows Media,
>nero, etrust antivirus, power dvd etc. I think windows 2000 is the way to go , I
>HIGHLY RECCOMENT WINDOWS 2000 PROFESSIONAL OVER XP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Here is my conclusion. I believe that Windows 2000 is very Stable on old computers from Pentium 200 MHz. all the way to a modern PC. If you have a Pentium 4 1.2 to 2.0, XP and 2000 will run at the same speed, but 2000 will be better than multitasking, but a processor higher than 2.0 GHz, which are the HT and Dual Core Processors, Windows XP will take advantages over the processor features which will make the system run much better than 2000, but I like 2000 better if you have a Pentium 3 Class or an early Pentium 4 Class Processor. If you compare 2000 Pro to XP Home, then 2000 Pro will be way better, because it has more features, but if you compare it with XP Pro, 2000 will be good for older, middle class PC's and XP will be good for Newer Monsters.


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
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum