Any good recent articles comparing win2k versus winxp?

[pr-man 1]

thx

[Ali 0]

I don't care!! as long as I can use "msconfig" to see what's on startup that's enogh!!!

(a little fix on this post: there is this advantage of having MSCONFIG in XP which makes the life easier!!! )

[adamvjackson 0]

Heh heh, but MSCONFIG wasn't included with Win2k...

 

[Ali 0]

yes... so that is one for XP and nothing for 2K!!!!

[adamvjackson 0]

Well, if you must have MSCONFIG in 2000, you can download the XP version, it works fine. However, I really don't see the benefit of it, if you're vell seasoned with regedit.

[DosFreak 2]

or superior products like StartupCPL.

[Ali 0]

yes... but there is this little difference. If you have been forced to use Win 9x for some years and you are used to "Winipcfg" and "msconfig" when you encounter Win 2k for the first time it is dissapointing that you can't change what's on the startup as easy as before, however you will be very happy that you will not be using "winipcfg" ever again, because there are better ways of working with your ip's. If win 2k has something easier to use than "msconfig" i whould have been happy. i hope you see my point now.

why you people can't take a little joke and give some credit to XP!!!!!

[adamvjackson 0]

Here's my credit to XP, which I've said all along. If you have to purchase a new OS, get XP only because it will be supported longer than 2k. There.

 

[Ali 0]

Quote:

Here's my credit to XP, which I've said all along. If you have to purchase a new OS, get XP only because it will be supported longer than 2k. There.

oh come on.... you can do better than that!!!
now that we are done with XP lets talk about Lindows!!!! Sure sounds nice!!!

[adamvjackson 0]

Lindows (n): (1) A plague upon the Linux community.

[Admiral LSD 0]

Quote:

Lindows (n): (1) A plague upon the Linux community.

Agreed. Any Linux distribution that encourages logging in as root is retarded.

[Ali 0]

Has anybody here actually tested them? I haven't.

but the day I really have to pay for a copy of new OS is the day i'll be looking for something that works and is good enough to work with. Linux is a much cheaper solutionthan windows, and it looks noce too. but i am lazy to go and learn Unix!!!

if someday i have to pay to Mr. Gates, i have rather to consider all my alternatives first.

[adamvjackson 0]

It's my opinion that regardless of what 'other' software you have on your pc, you should at least have the OS be legit. Explain to me why, Ali, that Windows 2000/XP is not worth the price to legally obtain?

[Ali 0]

Quote:

It's my opinion that regardless of what 'other' software you have on your pc, you should at least have the OS be legit. Explain to me why, Ali, that Windows 2000/XP is not worth the price to legally obtain?

honestly only because i have better things t do with $300+ to pay for the OS. on the other hand, you pay the money and for the support you still have to pay another $270 when you need help from MS.
i may pay for an os that is really supported, and they don't ask me for my credit card number when i call them.

I work for a computer company and whatever i do is legal according to all oem standards. but still they won't proivide you with the support when you need them most. (sure if you pay for each question you ask they will treat you nicely, but each one is going to cost you or your company over $270US)

for my personal use i have not bought a single software from Microsoft in past 3 years and i never regret it. Because they dissapointed me when I payed for it.

Do you actully buy Windows even though you know if anything goes wrong your best bet are people in NTCompatible, not Microsoft?

[Brian Frank 0]

Are you a student? If so, you can get a discounted version of software cheaper than the retail version. And, so long as you have a fairly recent version of Windows, you can just buy the upgrade of XP.

[iseeyourhere 0]

:x [To be or not to .....] Wise words long ago spoken.

[adamvjackson 0]

Yes, I do buy my operating systems. I am a network administrator, and because of that position, I am obligated to two things:

 

1. Be aware of software licensing and reprocessions of compliance failure

2. The need to be familiar with the most common software

 

I would be lying if I said that I have never downloaded software which I was not entitled to do so, however, if I personally find the software to be useful, I will purchase a copy/license. Also, if the software does not meet my needs, it is removed immediately. This is a fine line that I walk, and I know that it is in the gray area, there's no denying that.

[Ali 0]

oh well.... i guess i have been over reacting.

i don't think there is anything wrong with buying windows, but i'm an idealist and a poerfectionist. if the person or company that i deal with (personally) doesn't treat his clients right, it is not going to have my business. on the other hand i said i don't pay for "Microsoft" software product because i know they don't care to give you support if there is no money involved for their goofups.

i have deal with Ulead, Ahead, Lavasoft, nad many others and everytime i contacted them i got a decent answer. Also i contacter Roxio and they never gave me the right answer and i won't use roxio products and if i have to use it i have rather not to pay for it.

same goes with MS. the day they support you on their goof ups then i pay for my OS. i have full licence for 98/ME/ and 2000 and ME was a disaster, 98 was a little better than ME and 2000 had problems with Video for windows and they never gave me a decent answer to my problem. XP so far is the best one as long as i don't have to deal with MS directly.

[Ali 0]

Quote:

for my personal use i have not bought a single software from Microsoft in past 3 years and i never regret it. Because they dissapointed me when I payed for it.

For people who care to know how i got the licences, i got them from work. i payed for 98, and the company that i work with payed for ME and 2000.

[dr suds 0]

Here's all I've gotta say, I ran XP and it was a nightmare. Not because I couldn't use it. Infact I liked all the OS X rip off eye candy and the mediaplayer functions that I can't get in win2k. But win2k ran solid on my machine.. untill now.. (I installed directx 8.. that's why I'm here)

 

-Zeek

[Mr.Guvernment 0]

oh well.... i guess i have been over reacting.

i don't think there is anything wrong with buying windows, but i'm an idealist and a poerfectionist. quote]

 

 

i didn't know "Perfectionists" made spelling mistakes....lol

[adamvjackson 0]

...Or made mistakes in quote formatting...

 

 

[Ali 0]

Quote:

...Or made mistakes in quote formatting...

thanks for correcting Perfectionist problem. I appreciate it.
I said i'm an idealist and a perfectionist, and I never said I am perfect. In fact i say it out laud and clear that I DO have so many lacks and i admit it.
I thank you guys anyways and i'm sorry for ending up being on some people's wrong side.
I don't usually spell check my quotes because it is not all that important. You guys know what I mean...

[duhmez 0]

1) When you have 2 rows of tasks on xp taskbar, and you minimise a task, it defaults t row 2 always. This is very annoying. (I run manymany windows and tasks at once)

 

2) XP has too many fuity popups and wizards and the stupid search dog and bloatware.

 

2k is a teeny bit better imo. I've been using 2k since rc1.

[mthaler 0]

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml

 

The article shows a real slowdown in multitasking with XP vs. Win2K.

 

My experience shows the article to be pretty right.