f



Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP?

I know it's probably been asked to death, but what is everyone's preference
and why?
     -O



0
Ovid
11/5/2003 5:38:17 PM
comp.os.ms-windows.misc 2965 articles. 1 followers. vnagrik (21) is leader. Post Follow

13 Replies
1064 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 41

Ovid left a note on my windscreen which said:

> I know it's probably been asked to death, but what is everyone's preference
> and why?

XP (Pro).

Cause it's 2K with knobs on.
-- 

Stoneskin

[Insert sig here]
0
Stoneskin
11/6/2003 9:50:34 AM
On 5 Nov 2003 11:38:17 -0600, Ovid <Ovid@Epigram.com> wrote:
>I know it's probably been asked to death, but what is everyone's preference
>and why?

I don't use Windows a whole lot. But when I do, my own preference is for
Windows 2000. Fast and stable, without all the cruft that XP brings to
the table.

-- 
  Roger Blake
  (Subtract 10 for email.)
0
rogblake10
11/6/2003 11:21:22 AM
On 2003-11-05, Ovid <Ovid@Epigram.com> wrote:

> I know it's probably been asked to death, but what is everyone's preference
> and why?

Win2k.  Less annoying, don't need the knobs.

-- 

-John (JohnThompson@new.rr.com)
0
John
11/8/2003 2:13:25 AM
Thanks to those of you who responded.
          -O


"Ovid" <Ovid@Epigram.com> wrote in message
news:3fa93403$0$60208$45beb828@newscene.com...
> I know it's probably been asked to death, but what is everyone's
preference
> and why?
>      -O
>
>
>


0
Ovid
11/10/2003 7:32:23 PM
"Ovid" <Ovid@Epigram.com> writes:
> I know it's probably been asked to death, but what is everyone's preference
> and why?
>      -O

I'm still with win2k and rather happy, to be honest.    I'm enjoying
great stability and don't really care to deal with MS's product
activiation crap any time I might want to change up peripherals on my
machine and fear XP thinking I've changed too much and want me
reactivate or some such. 

Also, there's typically a big stability benefit in staying behind the
technology curve.  The old addage "trust nothing Microsoft until
service pack 3 is released..." and what not.

Even with new machines I've suggested to friends, I'm recommending
win2k.   But XP doesn't appear to suck that much, really.  It seems
pretty stable. 

-- 
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
0
comphelp
11/12/2003 8:05:35 PM
I'm leaning toward w2k as well.  I don't like the idea of activation, and
from what I understand xp is memory hungry, no memory starved.  The problem
is that most if not all new machines come with xp only.  Everybody has to
jump on the damn bandwagon...one more reason to stay off it I guess.
         -O


"Todd H." <comphelp@toddh.net> wrote in message
news:m0k765qrn4.fsf@rcn.com...
> "Ovid" <Ovid@Epigram.com> writes:
> > I know it's probably been asked to death, but what is everyone's
preference
> > and why?
> >      -O
>
> I'm still with win2k and rather happy, to be honest.    I'm enjoying
> great stability and don't really care to deal with MS's product
> activiation crap any time I might want to change up peripherals on my
> machine and fear XP thinking I've changed too much and want me
> reactivate or some such.
>
> Also, there's typically a big stability benefit in staying behind the
> technology curve.  The old addage "trust nothing Microsoft until
> service pack 3 is released..." and what not.
>
> Even with new machines I've suggested to friends, I'm recommending
> win2k.   But XP doesn't appear to suck that much, really.  It seems
> pretty stable.
>
> --
> Todd H.
> http://www.toddh.net/


0
Ovid
11/17/2003 5:23:03 PM
"Ovid" <Ovid@Epigram.com> writes:

> I'm leaning toward w2k as well.  I don't like the idea of activation, and
> from what I understand xp is memory hungry, no memory starved.  The problem
> is that most if not all new machines come with xp only.  Everybody has to
> jump on the damn bandwagon...one more reason to stay off it I guess.

Much agreed. 

This is why I avoid large box computer manufacturers like the plague,
and work with local custom system builders ( for example, myoda.com in
Chicagoland ) who'll install whatever OS I request and purchase...and
only the OS without the maketing tie in crap.   I still order boxes
for myself, friends, and small business acquaintences with vanilla win2k
builds from such local folk. 

Best Regards,
-- 
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
0
comphelp
11/17/2003 6:54:38 PM
comphelp@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in news:m08ymeomfl.fsf@rcn.com:

> "Ovid" <Ovid@Epigram.com> writes:
> 
>> I'm leaning toward w2k as well.  I don't like the idea of activation,
>> and from what I understand xp is memory hungry, no memory starved.  The
>> problem is that most if not all new machines come with xp only. 
>> Everybody has to jump on the damn bandwagon...one more reason to stay
>> off it I guess. 
> 
> Much agreed. 
> 
> This is why I avoid large box computer manufacturers like the plague,
> and work with local custom system builders ( for example, myoda.com in
> Chicagoland ) who'll install whatever OS I request and purchase...and
> only the OS without the maketing tie in crap.   I still order boxes
> for myself, friends, and small business acquaintences with vanilla win2k
> builds from such local folk. 
> 
> Best Regards,

Which reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask:
Let's say one DID buy a built system with XP preinstalled....how hard would 
it be to wipe the drive clean as though XP were never there and thus install 
the OS of one's choice without interference??

~~Shock~~
0
Shock
11/18/2003 6:52:19 PM
Shock <nomail@here.not> writes:

> Which reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask:
> Let's say one DID buy a built system with XP preinstalled....how hard would 
> it be to wipe the drive clean as though XP were never there and thus install 
> the OS of one's choice without interference??

Assuming the machine is built on a commercial motherboard and with
commercial peripherals for which there are stable drivers... not
terribly difficult at all.   The problem comes form big box computer
makers where the machine may or may not have customized cheaped down
peripherals or motherboards that require rather specialized drivers
that may not be available for OS's that predate the development of
that box. 

I'm not entirely certain, but if you were to slap win2k on it, you
_may_ even be licensed appropriatley by the grace of your preinstalled
Winxp.  Can anyone verify if this is an accurate interpretation of
Microsoft's EULA for an XP machine that comes from a big box
manufacturer--would it cover the installation of an older OS in place
of WinXP?

Best REgards, 
-- 
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
0
comphelp
11/18/2003 7:32:01 PM
On 2003-11-18, Shock <nomail@here.not> wrote:

> Let's say one DID buy a built system with XP preinstalled....how hard would 
> it be to wipe the drive clean as though XP were never there and thus install 
> the OS of one's choice without interference??

No problem at all, at least until Microsoft rolls out "trusted computing."

-- 

-John (JohnThompson@new.rr.com)
0
John
11/20/2003 6:13:14 AM
On 2003-11-18, Todd H. <comphelp@toddh.net> wrote:

> I'm not entirely certain, but if you were to slap win2k on it, you
> _may_ even be licensed appropriatley by the grace of your preinstalled
> Winxp.  Can anyone verify if this is an accurate interpretation of
> Microsoft's EULA for an XP machine that comes from a big box
> manufacturer--would it cover the installation of an older OS in place
> of WinXP?

IANAL, but I doubt it.  Microsoft has traditionally viewed operating 
systems and the hardware on which they are installed as a single unit -- 
hence the activation feature in XP that ties your license to a particular 
machine.  That you may have purchased a license for XP by default when you 
bought your machine means nothing. You must still purchase a separate copy 
of Win2k or whatever for that same hardware. 

It can be very difficult to avoid paying the "Microsoft tax."

-- 

-John (JohnThompson@new.rr.com)
0
John
11/20/2003 6:13:15 AM
Pros:
Service Pack 2 for XP (to be released sometime in 1Q 2004) will come with
new firewall software that's enabled by default.
Also, XP UI is better than Win2K for people with weak vision.

Cons:
After installing Visual Studio .Net on top of XP I started experiencing
crashes. VS .Net on Win2K (on same machine) doesn't result in any crashes.

Boris

"Ovid" <Ovid@Epigram.com> wrote in message
news:3fa93403$0$60208$45beb828@newscene.com...
> I know it's probably been asked to death, but what is everyone's
preference
> and why?
>      -O
>
>
>


0
Boris
11/22/2003 7:10:38 PM
"John Thompson" <john@starfleet.os2.dhs.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbrolbn.320.john@starfleet.os2.dhs.org...
| On 2003-11-18, Todd H. <comphelp@toddh.net> wrote:
|
| > I'm not entirely certain, but if you were to slap win2k on it, you
| > _may_ even be licensed appropriatley by the grace of your preinstalled
| > Winxp.  Can anyone verify if this is an accurate interpretation of
| > Microsoft's EULA for an XP machine that comes from a big box
| > manufacturer--would it cover the installation of an older OS in place
| > of WinXP?
|
| IANAL, but I doubt it.  Microsoft has traditionally viewed operating
| systems and the hardware on which they are installed as a single unit -- 
| hence the activation feature in XP that ties your license to a particular
| machine.  That you may have purchased a license for XP by default when you
| bought your machine means nothing. You must still purchase a separate copy
| of Win2k or whatever for that same hardware.
|
| It can be very difficult to avoid paying the "Microsoft tax."
|
| -- 
|
| -John (JohnThompson@new.rr.com)

Money-wise that's convenient for them to have the hardware and software
considered a single unit. But that is not the case. A computer can run any
compatible software.

On top of that, when push comes to shove, Microsoft views software as
copyrightable work .. free speech etc. etc. and not hardware. If they had to
make a choice i.e. that software is part of the hardware or is a
copyrightable work they would choose the latter because it means they are in
no way responsible for how well the software works on the machine.

I tend to agree with the later as well. Software is maleable, changable,
writable, can be quite impulsive and so on and really belongs to the realm
of the copyrightable work and not hardware.

NTLDR


0
NTLDR
11/27/2003 6:39:53 PM
Reply: