re: Windows Xp vs. Windows 2000
Friday, March 25, 2005 at 7:37 am
Windows XP Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Shawn
(14 messages posted)
XP is not faster, Windows 2000 takes 5 mins to boot to the login screen and 5 seconds
to desktop. Windows XP takes 30 seconds to login screen and 5 mins to desktop.
Microsoft just switched it around to promote faster boot to login, thats all. 2000
just loads it all before the login.
Our company has 2000 users. At first on Win2k and now WinXP. Its 2005 and 2 service
packs later and WinXP is still worse than Win2k. Win2k didn't lock up. Win2k didn't
give IE errors as much. WinXP apparently forgot how to copy profiles without having
to reboot. Call it bad configuration or hardware, but Win2k seems to have handled
our bad configs and hardware fine.
I'm looking for the day we goto Linux. But then again I make more money being on
WinXP than either Win2k or Linux. The crappier the OS the more in demand I am.
On Sunday, January 30, 2005 at 6:41 am, xlioilx wrote:
>I agree xp is way faster I used 2k for years since it was first put out, and xp
>just loads faster,runs smother with a hell of a lot less lock ups that make you
have
>to reboot. At first I hated xp and wanted to puke every time I looked at a screen
>running it but, now it is my O.S. of choice out of windows.
> Ok with xp on the computer at work fresh install it takes about 1 min to boot with
>2k sp4 it takes 15.35 min just to get in to windows thats on a 500mhz celeron 96ram.
>
>
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  | |  | re: Windows Xp vs. Windows 2000 (Shawn: Fri, Mar 25, 2005, 7:37 am) |
| |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows XP Discussion Forum
|
|
