Win2K or WinXP?

[Victor]

| On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:28:07 -0500, "Victor"
|
| W2K runs *very* well on a 600X with maxed memory and a
| fast HD. On installation you'd almost think that they were
| built for each other.
|
| XP is slow and ugly and treats you like an idiot. It is an
| offence to a fine machine like the 600x to put XP on it.
|
|
| Lars
| Stockholm



I disagree with you. If WinXP SP2 runs well on a 600e which is a PII 400MHz NB, then it
will run just great on the 600x. Just like WinXP SP2 on; A21m, A22m which I installed and
had no probplems and is was not slow and not "ugly" as you put it.

I disagree. Now, I understand that a lot of people on this group have been
touting the Microsoft Party Line, but I do PR for a living and I recognize
the bullshit.

Even Microsoft's own requirements say Win2K is more efficient. The
requirements for WinXP is twice that of Win2K in almost every respect,
especially memory and processing power.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Victor wrote:
.....

So what?

......

It's a much worse choice if Windows XP is much, much slower than Windows
2000, especially if those "quite a few others" reasons don't matter to me.

......

C'mon, have you ever known Microsoft to tell you "stick with the previous
version, it's faster"? They even stuck by Windows ME, and that just sucked!
Please don't expect me to find an unbiased opinion on Microsoft's website.

I found this:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/featurecomp.mspx

and XP doesn't have any additional features I can't get with 2000 and a good
firewall. The matrix has silly features like "increased application
compatibility". And some of the entries are just wrong.

If you'd already made you decision, why'd you bother to ask for our
opinions or advice?

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH