Trent© said:
2000 is more of a business os. And many in the corporate world feel
the same as you...and have not changed over to xp.
I personally feel that 2k is much more robust...and responds more
quickly to commands. Task Manager, in particular, is much more
responsive.
And the crew that's writing seems to be much more qualified. There
have been very few problems with 2k when sp's come out...as compared
with this latest xp sp2 fiasco.
For stability and reliability, I prefer 2k.
Windows XP Professional is the next Windows 2000 - Based off the same NT
kernel. And can be tweaked down to perform the same, if not better, as its
memory management is indeed more robust than 2000s. It can even look like
Windows 2000 ad when it is tweaked down to do so, runs better than an exact
duplicate Windows 2000 PC.
Managing it for both Business and Educational use in the thousands, I would
rather run Windows 2000 in both cases. Easier to manage, more options to
lock down, and runs better on older/less robust hardware than Windows 2000.
Thousands of Windows XP machines updated by SUS and the only problems I have
had was vendors who did not take the time to test their products thoroughly
before the final release - and then within a month of the release, they had
patched their product to remedy the situation and the problems went away.
I would much rather have the Windows Firewall (as well as our external
hardware firewall) than not. I would also rather have the system restore
and driver rollback features for the few users we have left that are
actually a necessity (and usually can be trusted) to have administrative
rights on their local machines. Windows XP's ability to find and install
drivers for new hardware is much improved over it's predecessors as well as
the security features are vastly improved. As far as stability, it is, IMO,
more stable than previous OSes in the proper hands and has built in features
that better assist the improper hands than ever before.
It's much like Windows 2000 server vs Windows 2003 server to me. It
contains the features the past OS should have had and the true reason I see
many people have not moved to either is economics or just plain not wanting
to change. Hopefully that will change or we will be stuck again in
difficult moves, like the ones going on now from Windows NT to Windows 2003
servers, instead of the original jump that should have happened. I am still
shocked that more people did not see the benefit of Active Directory and its
management over that of NTs abilities sooner.
But this is all opinions and conjecture. Each group will feel and do what
they want.
