XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.

Whats is the question then?



Ridge Walker wrote:

> XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.

Development for Windows 2000 stopped long ago. Ask the hardware manufacturer
if they support Windows 2000.

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Ridge Walker" wrote:
| XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.
|

Leythos wrote:

> In article <1136088395.824632.77140@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> tokyootaku@hotmail.com says...
> > XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.
>
> Strange, I've got more than 1000+ Windows XP SP2 computers running in
> all sorts of settings, and other than flaky custom applications
> written by noobs, they are as stable as my Fedora Core 3 and 4 boxes,
> as stable as my Windows 2000 Prof boxes, and as stable as anything
> else I use.

What are you, some sort of God?? At least pcbutts1 can help people.

I remember you claiming that you have never been infected by a virus
and this is something I cannot beleive. You are like pcbutts1, a
complete liar.

You troll around and attempt to stalk pcbutts1 in aps group, you are
pathetic.

--
Jimmy

Ridge Walker wrote:

> XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.


I don't agree at all. I found Windows 2000 to be stable, and I find XP to be
even more stable.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> Ridge Walker wrote:
>
>
>>XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.
>
>
>
> I don't agree at all. I found Windows 2000 to be stable, and I find XP to be
> even more stable.
>

In my experience it's pretty much a draw overall. XP is more finicky
about hardware (particularly RAM), that much is true, but if you use up
to snuff hardware for XP and don't do stupid stuff with the machine it's
quite stable. Problems tend to arise when users screw with system
settings they have no business with. I used to bitch about system
settings in XP being buried half-way to China but now I wish MS would
have buried them even deeper.

Happy New Year!
Steve N.

Jimmy wrote:

>
> What are you, some sort of God?? At least pcbutts1 can help people.
>
> I remember you claiming that you have never been infected by a virus
> and this is something I cannot beleive. You are like pcbutts1, a
> complete liar.
>
> You troll around and attempt to stalk pcbutts1 in aps group, you are
> pathetic.
>


There are good system administrators, managers and installers.
And there are also lucky system administrators, managers and
installers. Probability indicates that a small number may be
both good and lucky. Leythos could be both very good and lucky.
Or perhaps he supports an organization that has zero-tolerance
for users whose computers get infected. The fear factor works
every time.

On 31 Dec 2005 20:06:35 -0800, "Ridge Walker" <tokyootaku@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.

Both are quite stable, I've found. Have you checked the Intel site?
--
Top 10 Conservative Idiots:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/