Windows 2000 Pro, better than XP Pro

[EEG161]

I've finally installed WinXP to check it out. I replaced the WinME OS/PC with XP and its much more stable than ME, but not better than my W2K Pro SP3 box.(for me). XP Installed fine but I had problems with the CD burning software and Nero5, EZCD 5. Network is running OK, everything else is OK, but its not as fast as W2K.

I'll have to test WinXP on a new, self built machine to see if it works like my W2K self built, maybe thats the key. Putting any OS on these crappy HP, Sony VAIO, Compaq's, etc... is a bit too restricting. With a self built, I can put in the "right" compatible parts and replace, upgrade or update hardware & Bios' with ease if theres a problem, and this will fix most compatibility issues.

For what I do, I don't see anything in XP that is soooo much better than W2K Pro. If you like the new Fisher-Price look of XP, then you will enjoy it. I'm more of a purist. I've got the XP box on "classic mode", with some help from tweakUI. Bottom line though, it's good to have choices.
These opinions are only what apply to me and what I've observed and what I prefer. I make no harsh criticisms.

And NO, we don't have ourselves to blame. XP does have some serious flaws that are endemic to most machines,..... that will hopefully get fixed with a new SP and better 3rd party SD communincation/drivers. XP HE is OK, but if you've used W2K pro, XP Pro is the logical choice. That will be my next machine. A self built XP Pro box. I'm hoping it will run like my W2K pro self built, ROCK SOLID STABLE! Not one BSOD in 2 years its been running.

And above all, Enjoy life. Human interaction is much better than ANY machine.

[guarana2.5]

I've been using win2k pro for more than 2 years. At first it was a pain, but after the first service pack it was great, I never had a problem with it after that. But that is probably because I did a clean install and format of it usually every month or two. Call me crazy, but I like my system clean!
Now, I just installed xp for the first time two days ago. I have mixed feelings about it. I like it, but I don't. It's fast and fairly stable. But my other software isn't stable anymore. It's features are more up to date than win2k and I like that a lot. Win2k's features are definitely aging. The thing I hate about xp is the way the interface looks. It's hard for me to look at for a long time and it makes my eyes tired, so I just changed the color scheme to "classic". Now I like it.

Win2k has been great, but it's time for something new.

By the way I've never paid for any version of windows and I've had them all from 3.1 on to xp now. ha ha ha Oh, I never will pay for windows in the future either... micro$oft sucks purple monkey c*ck!

[cfitz]

But that is probably because I did a clean install and format of it usually every month or two. Call me crazy, but I like my system clean!

Okay, you are crazy.

Seriously, I have had no need to reinstall 2000 at all, let alone on a monthly basis. More importantly, how do you keep up with the security patches if you are constantly reinstalling? Sure, you can do things to make installing the patches more efficient, but I suspect the burden for most people would be excessive, and they just wouldn't bother keeping up. It is bad enough to install them the first time, let alone every month.

Reinstalling 2000 (or XP) every month is unnecessary and a waste of time. But, if that is what floats your boat, then by all means enjoy yourself.

By the way I've never paid for any version of windows and I've had them all from 3.1 on to xp now. ha ha ha Oh, I never will pay for windows in the future either... micro$oft sucks purple monkey c*ck!

Thanks for adding that.

cfitz

[CDRecorder]

In my experience, XP is more stable than 98 and far more stable than Me. It actually runs faster than 98 on my 1.2 GHz Athlon (512 MB RAM), but it runs far slower than 98 on my 366 MHz Celeron (512 MB of RAM, too).

[guarana2.5]

More importantly, how do you keep up with the security patches if you are constantly reinstalling?

The only patches or updates I get are the service packs. I just download the network administrator version, aka the >100mb full version. I've downloaded all three. I just clean install win2k then install the newest sp over it. For security I use norton firewall. I tried using norton ghost to make an image of a clean install, but it was to much of a pain in the arse.

I found this process to be worth the time. win2k always ran alot better afterwards. I guess the biggest reason for me doing this is because I'm always installing new "free" software to "try out" and lot's of the time I decide I don't want it on my 'puter. So this works!

[cfitz]

I understand that if you have put a lot of software (some of it misbehaving) onto the system then it may be easier to wipe everything clean and start from scratch rather than trying to undo what the (potentially faulty) installations did. However, please keep in mind that many security patches are released between service packs, and some never make it into the service packs, so simply applying service packs doesn't cover everything.

Also, a firewall, while necessary, is not sufficient for securing your system. There are security breaches in IE, WMP, etc. that can leave your system vulnerable whether or not you have a firewall.

cfitz

[guarana2.5]

Also, a firewall, while necessary, is not sufficient for securing your system. There are security breaches in IE, WMP, etc. that can leave your system vulnerable whether or not you have a firewall.

cfitz

That's why I don't use IE or WMP (Opera and Winamp/Windvd are much better)

[cfitz]

The same point applies, though. Any software that access the Internet is potentially vulnerable, and a firewall won't protect such software in general. I was just using IE and WMP as examples. Opera has had plenty of holes in it as well. A week after the 7.0 release five holes, three of which were critical, were identified and had to be patched. Also, any patches that need to be applied to third-party software definitely won't be in Windows service packs.

Again, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with how you choose to run and regularly rebuild your system. It just that you, and others who might be reading this thread, should be aware that there are issues to consider.

cfitz

[guarana2.5]

cfitz I know what you mean and you have a good point. My ways are not the most secure, but I only have dial-up so I'm not at risk as much as a broadband user. But I'm still at risk. I suppose if I had broadband I would download all the patches, but it would suck to do that all the time with dial-up. I do keep all my other software up to date almost to the day the updates come out, I just don't get the M$ patches.

Oh, you want to know the best part of not getting all the Micro$oft patches? Reading about how a patch creates more problems and vulnerabilities! (and sometimes doesn't fix the problem it was intended to!)
I guess it's just a neverending drama.

What was this thread about again?