XP kicks 2000's butt

[CrazyCase]

Ok a lot of people hate xp's autoregistration via the web and "auto" features, well compared to 2000, i have to say xp pro rocks.

[Juztyn]

I second that, the part that XpPro rox :P

[Epyon9283]

Win2k rocks. XP does not. I would say what I really think about it but profanity is a no-no on this board.

[Juztyn]

What makes you not like XP?
I like it just because I can be lazy, I normally use 2k, but XP auto config's everything =)

[Skywalker[TSG]]

WinXP seems so slow compared to Win2k

also win2k has SP3 wich means its more secure and reliable then XP.

[Martee]

.NET Server rocks.

[Skywalker[TSG]]

Yeah it might but not many people use that in their home computers/workstations

[GroundZero3]

ill stick with win2k

[Epyon9283]

Originally posted by Juztyn
What makes you not like XP?
I like it just because I can be lazy, I normally use 2k, but XP auto config's everything =)

XP hogs too much ram. When I had XP, it would take more ram at startup with no programs running than win2k running apache, mysql, and rage3d tweak.

[PresterJohn]

the only butt that XP kicks, is its own.

w2k all the way, baby!

edit: wanna know what i call people that use XP?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
beta testers

[Skywalker[TSG]]

LOL !!

[techteen143]

Don't like it get better systems!
If you got the ram and speed XP Pro rocks!
Home edition suks tho

[^hyd^]

to each their own...















but for the record, I'm not the least bit impressed with XP...

2K, all the way!!

[Mntsnow]

Well I can tell you that alot of people that bad mouth XP run XP...lol (they just dont admit it?)

Proof is in the pudding so to speak...Here are just a few stats from one of my sites showing the break down of OS in use by visitors:

Operating Systems
OS Hits Percent
Windows XP 151830 46.1 % of Users
Windows 2000 83584 25.4 % of users
Windows 98 59502 18.1 %
Windows Me 8524 2.5 %
Windows NT 7206 2.1 %
Unknown 6915 2.1 %
Linux 4489 1.3 % has finally pulled ahead of 95!
Windows 95 4221 1.2 %
Mac OS 2058 0.6 %
Sun Solaris 224 0 %
Warp OS/2 61 0 %
FreeBSD 56 0 %

[NDC]

XP kicks 2000's butt

Amen!

[JimG]

I've worked with XP on a friend's laptop. Cleaned out the startup tray, tweaked Services, and did every other trick I know ... still doesn't make it run faster. Personally, I think Win2k would run much faster on there ... but it's her's, not mine.
I gotta say I love Windows 2000. Does everything I need it to without any major hitch. I'll probably have this OS until nothing supports it anymore.

[NDC]

Yeah, Windows 2000 certainly does run lighter than XP without a doubt. However, the difference isnt all that big. As for application performance, I see no difference. XP has some nice features that Win2k doesn't have, so I use XP. The non-unicode feature, Compatibility Mode which actually works, and the way XP optimizes on disk performance according to what programs you use most is a very nice feature. As far as all the privacy issues, I'm sure Windows 2000 will soon will become as bad as XP?

[PresterJohn]

>Well I can tell you that alot of people that bad mouth XP run XP...lol (they just dont admit it?)

well, of course. if you want truthful criticism of XP, then it should come from people who actually use it, right?!

i have close to a doz machines in my house...they run the gamut from win98 to nt to w2k to linux. only one machine has xp and that was loaded on about 3 months ago so that i could learn the os since we're rolling it out at work right now. i plan to wiping the drive & installing drake v9 whenever i have time.

my house will be XP-free very soon.

[OuTpaTienT]

Originally posted by PresterJohn
my house will be XP-free very soon.

Ah, so you're planning an exorcism? Good for you.

"The power of Christ compels you. The power of Christ compels you."

[ClubMed]

I like XP's stability. So far I haven't had any problems with XP.