[windows2000] W2K vs XP. What do you think?
- From: "Charles R. Buchanan" <crbgfblab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Windows 2000 Mailing List <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:06:57 -0700
Sorry for the length (size)
Just wanted to get your thoughts on this one. This is from a local
computer mag here in San Diego. If you wish to give him your thoughts
as well, his address is: digdave@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Personally I've always liked the fact that XP boots WAY faster than W2K,
but that's the only thing that I can think of. <shrug> He brought up
"user friendly" but personally, adminstrating the networking in W2K (IMO)
is more user friendly. I also feel W2K is more stable. Well at least
here on my systems. The lock-ups and/or crashes I have on XP isn't or
doesn't happen under W2K. So that tells me it's a OS problem. I could be
wrong. So personally I would recommend W2K before XP, unless they want
a lot of eye candy. :-) One more thing I think, I would probably give
XP the multimedia edge, except I have more trouble with DVD operations
than I care to think about! :-O Thank goodness for W2K! :-)
-----------------------------
Dear Digital Dave,
In the past, you have addressed questions from readers who are not comfortable
with Windows XP, and want to ?downgrade? to Win 2000 or another version of
Windows on their laptops or desktops.
You always advise against this?and I couldn?t agree more. Having bought a new
Sony VAIO laptop several months ago, I can?t possibly imagine why anyone would
even think about taking off XP in favor of 2K!
In truth, I believe that I would probably lose a great many of the features for
which I bought the Sony.
My Sony VAIO laptop serves as both a desktop replacement for my home office and
as a highly efficient mobile unit for traveling from client to client and
accessing different networks. I couldn?t be nearly as resourceful with anything
other than XP as my operating system.
I have a freelance client (attorney) I work for two to three days a week, who
recently bought a new IBM desktop computer for my sole use?and when our
computer consultant brought it in, I was dismayed to see that it came with
Windows 2000 instead of XP.
Working on both computers on a day-in, day-out basis really makes me wish the
client had consulted me as to which OS to install. I would definitely have
opted for Win XP rather than the slower, less flexible, less functional Win 2K.
I intend, in fact, to see that my office PC will receive the upgrade at the
first possible opportunity.
Ken Martin
Dear Ken,
I appreciate your direct-comparison report. Windows 2000 came from the
?professional? branch of Windows, and suffered from being half Windows NT and
half Windows 98. The Windows NT core was fine; however, the user interface was
less than user friendly.
The professional side had lots of features only a large network administrator
could love. Running into that stuff on a home network can drive you crazy. It
was just too hard to use, and help was too hard to find.
Windows XP has a much more friendly user interface, and tons more features to
support things like digital photos and video on your machine. Since Sony sells
its computers as part of an imaging system, it would be a shame to downgrade
and lose those features.
You can take a Sony digital camcorder, plug it into a Sony computer, and
immediately transfer over the video. All the tools come preinstalled.
Digital Dave
Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage - SP
********************************************************
This Weeks Sponsor StressedPuppy.com Games
Feeling stressed out? Check out our games to
relieve your stress.
http://www.StressedPuppy.com
********************************************************
To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation
mode or view archives use the below link.
http://thethin.net/win2000list.cfm
Other related posts:
