2000 vs. XP

[Trent©]

Which one do you like better?...and why?


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

 

[Walter Schulz]

Which one do you like better?...and why?

Which one is the best car?
Depends on your needs!

Ciao, Walter

 

[David H. Lipman]

Good Answer !

Dave



| >Which one do you like better?...and why?
|
| Which one is the best car?
| Depends on your needs!
|
| Ciao, Walter

 

[William W. Plummer]

Someone else had a good view: NT was MS OS Version 5.0; Win2K is Version
5.1 and WinXP is version 5.2. There's really no difference in the OS, it
is just the GUI. XP is also call the "Bubblegum GUI".

 

[Walter Schulz]

Someone else had a good view: NT was MS OS Version 5.0; Win2K is Version
5.1 and WinXP is version 5.2. There's really no difference in the OS, it
is just the GUI. XP is also call the "Bubblegum GUI".

NT is 4.0
W2k is 5.0
XP is 5.1
and 2003 is 5.2

Type VER at the command prompt.

NT was available as Workstation, Server, Enterprise Server and TSE
XP is available as Pro and Home
W2k is available as Pro, Server, Advanced Server and Datacenter.

There are some differences, for example the TCP/IP-stack delivered
with NT is a terrible mess.

Ciao, Walter

 

[Trent©]

Someone else had a good view: NT was MS OS Version 5.0; Win2K is Version
5.1 and WinXP is version 5.2. There's really no difference in the OS, it
is just the GUI. XP is also call the "Bubblegum GUI".

I find there's a LOT of difference...that's why I wondered what other
folks think.

W2k seems a LOT faster...and more responsive...than xp. And the
commands available are a lot different.

Things like getting into Task Manager are a lot more robust in 2000.

I'm starting to like w2k sp3 a LOT better than xp.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

 

[XS11E]

Which one do you like better?...and why?

I prefer Windows 2000, Windows XP contains additional features that I
don't want or need.

 

[Bobby Davies]

It all depends on how much "tweaking" you want to do. When you minimize all
the "fisher price" like interface down to a similar windows 2000 classic
interface, there is no speed comparsion between XP and 2000. XP's memory
management is far superior to Win2k's.

 

[Trent©]

It all depends on how much "tweaking" you want to do. When you minimize all
the "fisher price" like interface down to a similar windows 2000 classic
interface, there is no speed comparsion between XP and 2000. XP's memory
management is far superior to Win2k's.

That part I REALLY disagree on!

At least its been MY experience that w2k is much better at releasing
things than xp.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

 

[David H. Lipman]

If I'm not mistaken -- Both WinXP and Win2K use the same memory model. WinXP just consumes
more memory for the EXE, DLLs and the GUI than Win2K thus requiring more RAM.

Dave



<Trent©> wrote in message | On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:25:57 -0600, "Bobby Davies"
|
| >It all depends on how much "tweaking" you want to do. When you minimize all
| >the "fisher price" like interface down to a similar windows 2000 classic
| >interface, there is no speed comparsion between XP and 2000. XP's memory
| >management is far superior to Win2k's.
|
| That part I REALLY disagree on!
|
| At least its been MY experience that w2k is much better at releasing
| things than xp.
|
|
| Have a nice week...
|
| Trent
|
| Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

 

[Dr. Indera]

hello,

i prefer 2000 because in the 3 years that i've been using it, the machine
hasn't crashed.
i also have another computer that has xp professional on it, and it has
crashed a few times.

i plan to buy a new laptop in the next few months and will put 2000 on it.

indera