XP vs 2K

[smokey]

I recently fdisked my drive and replaced the POS xp with win2k which btw is so much better than XP.

The interface is extremely snappy compared to XP.
XP for some F&Q^$D reason forced my ata100 drive to run in PIO mode. Also every time I tried to use a second screen I would get a BSOD. I upgrade to 2k and suddenly everything works fine - even the SB Live software that cause BSOD's on winxp.

So much for microserf's claims that windows xp is more reliable, fast, resource efficient (winxp runs 4 instances of svchosts.exe where win2k only runs 1)

BTW. Im installing redhat 7.1 today . RH7.1 because I cant download any other version (stupid f&*&$#g optus@home 3gig dl limit.

[choasforages]

ummm, i have a 2.5 gig download cap. now considering a few months ago i downloaded the sgi version of redhat 7.3 and the three normal discs. freebsd, darwin, debian, did a few net installs of debian, keep a gnutella client running.

[smokey]

I would download it but half of it is used (approx 1.7gig) and I share it with the rest of my family so    

BTW. Windows 2k has the compatibility dialogue that allows ppl to run apps in win95/98/nt4 compatibility modes like in XP. All you need is a registry hack that I cant remember.

[ims27_8]

Hey.

I'm on Optus@home, i signed up about a month and a half before the new limit        . I just downloaded Red hat 7.3 the other day, but i can't install it   :confused:  , i get right to the end (2 packages left, around 6 meg) then it asks for the 3rd CD, i put it in, and it says "can't read from device mnt/setup/somethingorother..." I tried burning another copy of it, but i still got the same error. I think it might be something to do with my HDD (is that possible?), because I also have problems partitioning (something about partition table not aligned correctly or something) but I've tried deleteing all partitions and starting again twice with no luck. I also tried mandrake 8.2 which has worked in the past, but it didn't this time so i think it's the HDD. um... what was this topic about again?  ah yes, 2k vs XP. No doubt about it, 2k is much better. From my experience it is much more reliable, much less annoying, and it lets me run office 2k which i need for work. It is slightly slower than XP on games though (at least from what i've seen on my family's computer, 600MHz, 384Mb ram and 32mb gforcemx200). I don't notice any difference on my computer though, but it's specs are a lot higher, so maybe the difference is only noticeable/applicable on lower spec systems.

[trc3]

2.5 gig limit! That sucks!  I mean 2.5 gigs alot but still, i'd be pissed if cox put a limit on my service.  Another thing why would anyone ever name their company cox?  Maybe a woman owns it.

[Kat]

I don't think a woman owns it because if i ran an isp, there would be no download limit. I figure if you pay for something, then you should be able to download as much as you want. Of course, being an IRC freak, i would last about four days on a 2.5 gig limit.  
As for XP vs. Win2k, i have used both and Win2k is the better one. They both suck though. The sign i knew that XP was worse was when i installed Zonealarm and that corrupted the search dog thing. It was pretty much downhill from there. It didn't crash, but instead it would slow down and would only speed up again after a reboot.
Win2k is better and has some stablity(and decent for Windows uptimes) if you only check your emails and surf the web with Mozilla. Otherwise, you will probably get those "partial" crashes.

[choasforages]

slackware is such an easy distro after a few years, in fact anything made out of linux is easy for me now. so i moved on to messing with the *BSD's especally NetBSD, seems funny that microsoft uses *BSD, and microsoft still sucks. what i can't believe is that they managed to fuck *BSD so bad, i mean, its all there.

[slave]

Windows 2000 is nice, and I'd recommend it for servers, but XP is so much better for desktop use, what with the driver support, camera/scanner auto-setup, beautiful GUI, etc.

[choasforages]

wow, win2k is great for servers, just hope that they  don't bsod when servering your pages, actally, reall servers use UN*X, now go away DIE MOTHERFUCK

[slave]

silence, you lying hound.

[Master of Reality]

wow winXP User, you made me see the light... I am going out right now to pay $1200 on copies of winxp for all of my computers! What the hell was i thinking when i put free software on my computers.

[Refalm]

quote:choasforages: wow, win2k is great for servers, just hope that they don't bsod when servering your pages, actally, reall servers use UN*X, now go away DIE MOTHERFUCK

1. choasforages lied... Windows 2000 has no blue screen.

2. choasforages spoke the truth, Windows 2000 needs much hard-disk space and a 133 MHz chip just to run. It needs a 233 MHz chip to run normally.
On a UNIX based server, you can set up a webserver on a 486.

[smokey]

quote:Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
Windows 2000 is nice, and I'd recommend it for servers, but XP is so much better for desktop use, what with the driver support, camera/scanner auto-setup, beautiful GUI, etc.

Please don't make me go there - windows XP is worse than pathetic.

[LorKorub]

This is like that old question we used to ask each other in fifth grade: "If you were forced to choose, what would you rather do:  Eat a bag of shit? Or drink a jar of piss?"

[Chooco]

WinXP is easier to use but it has lots of problems for me such as not letting me register after i formatted (told me that my CD key was already used, WELL DUH!!!) so i'm pretty much forced to crack the damn thing just so i can use a LEGAL COPY I PAID FOR!!!

i have a bit of a fondness for Win2k. when i say i hate Windows, 2k is somewhat exempt from a lot of the problems i say Windows has