Bah. You made the wrong choice.

Why do you say that, 2K seems to run way better on this machine, and I am happy. So how is that wrong? ;(

Quote:.NET should be better for ya. (As odd as that sounds.....) Seems MS devoted most of their attention to shoveling out XP for the home users. XP Pro was a byproduct of that marriage.

heh, if .NET follows the trend of previous MS server OS's how is the average user going to be able to afford it seeing as you not only have to buy the OS but a minimum of 5 client licences to go with it? You aren't promoting obtaining it through "unofficial" channels now, are you?

Nope. Your putting words in my mouth. All I said was that .NET should be better for ya. For those of use that work at large corporations, using our Volume Licenses's for training purposes works out wonderfully.

I take it you missed the "" at the end of that post then
 
Seriously, I've been using it for a while and, apart from a couple of things, I really can't see how .NET is better (as a desktop OS) than XP Pro.

Well your also the one who hates 2K with a passion so umm objective much?

Quote:Well your also the one who hates 2K with a passion so umm objective much?

I could say the same about your view on XP

I liked 2000 enough to use it for a year or so

Of course, the only real alternative then was Win98. Errgh...

Dude, I was joking. When I post a or a it means I'm joking.

Neither sucks but, personally i get the feeling that XP looks and feels like a "kid"-OS. Something i'd give my future kids, and when i use it for a while i cant help but to feel that it's slower. All kinds of slowness.
When i start a program it starts slower the menu system in the program itself feels slower. And another very annoying thing with XP (in my case only) i have a KG7-RAID motherboard and when i do a fresh install of XP; all files copied to my RAID gets corrupt. I need to install the drivers from the highpoint's homepage. That however 'fixes' the problem.
 
In case you're curious about REAL numbers here take a look at this!
 
http://www.redsheriff.com/cgi-bin/news20.cgi/Show?_id=d9c6
 
USA
1. Windows 98 28.28%
2. Windows 2000 28.22%
3. Windows XP 13.54% (kinda figures huh!?)
4. Windows ME 7.80% (RIP AMEN)
5. MAC OS 3.15% *grin*
 
At my work we bannished XP a long time ago. We saw nothing that would contribute to our bussiness by using this OS nor was it faster or better than what we already had choosed!
 
By the way, we bannished Office XP as well lol
I reckon we'll bannish a lot more of crap too that costs a lot and does not make us more efficient in our work in the future
 
I'm the kind of guy who likes to be in control of my computer and when i use XP and i see the harddrive starts reading for no real excuse i just dont get that warm nice feeling of safetly which is the case with W2k.
 
Win2k
+ Fast
+ Memory efficient
+ Very stable
+ Driver support - No problem (compared to XP)
- Doesn't get all the nice fancy pancy things from M$ no more!
 
WinXP
+ Lots of new features where a few of them actually are 'worthy'
- Computer hangs randomly after a few hours (in my case only)
- Eats memory even when all the fancy pancy sh^t is off (why would you want XP if you turn it off anyways?)
- Costs way too much to justify a buy !
 
Respect!

AMEN!

i have some funky hardware, but apart from that i would be using linux . But back to the topic: i prefer win2k, not just for the stability but for the greater performance compared to winxp. also winxp cant run some of my games, i dont know why but it just doesn't (e.g. need for speed: porsche unleashed)

You want control? Get Linux. All these complaints about XP being a newbie OS were also layed at the feet of the oh-so-beloved Win2K. Obviously, not many of you remember the hardcores whining about how many wizards there were in Win2K, and how it blocked direct access to almost everything (and btw, it still does). Well, get used to XP kiddies, because if you plan on being in a .NET world (i.e. managing these servers remotely without TS and the like) then XP is the only way to go.

Quote:i have some funky hardware, but apart from that i would be using linux . But back to the topic: i prefer win2k, not just for the stability but for the greater performance compared to winxp. also winxp cant run some of my games, i dont know why but it just doesn't (e.g. need for speed: porsche unleashed)


i have a fix for porche for xp if you want it

I didn't see as much complaining with 2K. Sure there was the minor complaints about moving around the Administrative Tools but once the one's who complained actually looked at it they realized that it made more sense than the NT4 way. The Wizard's in 2K didn't have to be used while the one's in XP are more "in your face". For those who complained about them in 2K they could simply not have to see 'em, in XP it's a bit more complicated due to the "wizard's" being more integrated into the entire experience.
 
Argue all you will but the fact is that although XP may be good for n00b's as they get more experienced in their usage of it the "experience" will become more of a hardship than if they were using 2K over time.

Quote:the one's in XP are more "in your face".

Bull. In a year of using XP I only count two (2) wizards that could be described that way. One is the Add Network Place wizard and the other is the Add you .NET Passport to Windows XP Wizard (both of which, I might add, occur under .NET as well, a couple of things I've noticed which go towards making a mockery of your ".NET for Power Users" stance). Other than that, I've been able to do things pretty much the same under XP Pro as 2000 Pro.

One of the things I mentioned that makes .NET stand out is the Control Panel "Users" icon links to the Users and Groups console instead of launching a wizard but its lost on me since, like under 2k (which had a similar wizard in the Control Panel leading to my doing things this way in the first place), I add all my users through the Computer Management console.

Quote:Argue all you will but the fact is that although XP may be good for n00b's as they get more experienced in their usage of it the "experience" will become more of a hardship than if they were using 2K over time.

How long is it supposed to take? Like I said, I've been using XP for a year and the "experience" as you put it has yet to become a hardship. Using 2000 for the same amount of time was more of a hardship than XP.

Would you describe yourself as an average user learning the OS "experience"? I think not. The fact is that since 2K has less enabled then it takes less to disable and use the "Pro" features than it does for XP, wheras to use the "Pro" features you have to disable them to get 'em.
 
2K Pro out of the box has them automagically enabled right from the start. You have to make thing's "easier". Whereas XP is "easier" out of the box for the n00b.
 
You really need to find a person who does not use computers very much at all and sit them at a 2K station...then at an XP station. Then find another user and perform the same but in reverse. I think you'll notice what I am talking about.

to me they are both pretty much the same
xp has some nice features that i like
and it has some crap that i don't like
there really isn't much of anything that i can do on xp that i can't do on xp

Quote:there really isn't much of anything that i can do on xp that i can't do on xp

I would hope so!

Here are some facts:
 
Windows XP will be more thoroughly supported than Windows 2000, simply because Windows XP has that Home use labelled on it along with corporate use, so for games XP will be better.
 
Windows XP has better gaming support than Windows 2000, alot of people say they are equal, they aren't. XP has more patches applied to it so that it can run some DOS games with sound and can run some 9x games that Windows 2000 can't out of the box, and I will use my infamous example of Need For Speed High Stakes.
 
Windows 2000 will be dead before Windows XP and will be phased out in a couple of more years, probably alongside Windows Millennium. This is happening as we speak to Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98. ATI doesn't even deliver official drivers for 98 anymore because Microsoft has stopped accepting WHQL submissions for 98 and NT4. ATI says you can use the Windows ME drivers, but they are not officially supported.
 
I don't like Windows XP's interface either, it looks stupid, the fix? Use classic mode. Face it though, future versions of Windows may not even have the classic interface, uh oh!
 
If you hate all the things that come with XP, and its lack of "OPTIONAL COMPONENTS" like Windows Messenger, Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, MSN Explorer, simply blame Microsoft, or get on the Internet and spend 5 hours trying to uninstall the stuff you didn't want installed in the first place.
 
The moral of this useless rant is simple, when it comes to Microsoft Windows OSes none of them is superior to the other, each one has a flaw, 2000 is games compatibility, XP is bloated, Millennium is odd, 98 crashes, NT4 has no USB, blah blah blah. If you ask me which Windows OS is the best, the best answer is its a tie, they all suck.