I am lovin' win2k

[RobCur]

One of the best os released by ms...
1. uses less memory 64mb vs 128mb on xp
2. perform 15-25 percent faster on games, application
3. immune to most viruses
4. immune to most spyware
5. winxp needs to reboot at least once a day, 2k probably once a month at worst.

I've been using xp for a year and I can say that its been nothing but headaches and disappointment.
overbloated, and its impossible to get rid of the many spyware that invade my computer at every reboot.
sound quality is so much better on 2k, crispier and louder..

xp is the most hated os due to lame activation. I don't see why most people like xp, its overrated, and a pain in the arse to maintain. more people may like xp because it was heavily advertised as the best os since slicebread but advertisement is just that, advertisement. It sold more, people use more and so you hear more people like it. This is due to cost of win2k being 189.95 vs xp home 89.95
I'm sticking with 2k indefinitely, there is no virus or spyware to worry about, and the update to sp1,sp2, other silly patches is just another annoyance I do not need.
2k is closer to a mac x os then xp... xp= xtra pitiful = owned like a cow
2k+Own Me=Xp
Or 2k Real Good Edition, lmao.

 

[loup garou]

*ignores RobCur*

 

[HomerSapien]

nevermind

 

[RobCur]

nm. werk is thread crapping pls ban if necessary.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: werk
*ignores RobCur*

 

[RobCur]

.

 

[RobCur]

.

 

[Canterwood]

Glad you like 2K.
I've used both OS's and prefer 2K myself.

A lot of people went to XP straight from 98 or ME, so generally find it much more stable, which it is, but like you, I find it just annoying with all the stuff you're forced to install. (Unless you Nlite it of course )

Its all down to preference, and we've had a ton of the XP v 2K threads.
And yes, I really don't like activation either, but even thats a lot less annoying than trying to activate the HL2 DVD :roll:

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: RobCur
One of the best os released by ms...
1. uses less memory 64mb vs 128mb on xp
2. perform 15-25 percent faster on games, application
3. immune to most viruses
4. immune to most spyware
5. winxp needs to reboot at least once a day, 2k probably once a month at worst.

I've been using xp for a year and I can say that its been nothing but headaches and disappointment.
overbloated, and its impossible to get rid of the many spyware that invade my computer at every reboot.
sound quality is so much better on 2k, crispier and louder..

xp is the most hated os due to lame activation. I don't see why most people like xp, its overrated, and a pain in the arse to maintain. more people may like xp because it was heavily advertised as the best os since slicebread but advertisement is just that, advertisement. It sold more, people use more and so you hear more people like it. This is due to cost of win2k being 189.95 vs xp home 89.95
I'm sticking with 2k indefinitely, there is no virus or spyware to worry about, and the update to sp1,sp2, other silly patches is just another annoyance I do not need.
2k is closer to a mac x os then xp... xp= xtra pitiful = owned like a cow
2k+Own Me=Xp
Or 2k Real Good Edition, lmao.

Don't know what you do or what you read, but, please show how 2K is "immune" to virus and spyware. Also, no idea what you do with your system, but, my kids systems both run XP Pro 24/7 and they don't reboot but perhaps once a week if that. As for performance, turn off the eyecandy and XP uses the same/less resources and performs faster in many apps/games.

XP is basicly an improvement of 2K with eyecandy added in and more security features supposedely. It's downfall for some apparently is the activation method. Thing is, facts show that more and more software, apps. and games are making provisions to move to the same or similar activation and several already are using it.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: RobCur
One of the best os released by ms...
1. uses less memory 64mb vs 128mb on xp

So? No one uses 64MB of ram these days in modern machines. Get over it.

2. perform 15-25 percent faster on games, application

Real world benchmarks for every application out there?

3. immune to most viruses

Bullshit.

4. immune to most spyware

Bullshit.

5. winxp needs to reboot at least once a day, 2k probably once a month at worst.

Bullshit.

 

[stash]

xp is the most hated os due to lame activation. I don't see why most people like xp

Good logic there. It's the most hated OS, but most people like it!

its overrated, and a pain in the arse to maintain.

XP and 2000 use the exact same update mechanism. What is your point here?

more people may like xp because it was heavily advertised as the best os since slicebread but advertisement is just that, advertisement.

Congratulations, you pass marketing 101. Again, what is your point?

I'm sticking with 2k indefinitely, there is no virus or spyware to worry about, and the update to sp1,sp2, other silly patches is just another annoyance I do not need.

Denial is a beautiful thing, isn't it? You can FUD all you want, but XP SP2 is much less vulnerable to spyware and other exploits than any other version of Windows available. Of all the critical updates that have been released in since XP SP2 was released, how many applied to XP SP1 and lower (including 2000)? How many applied to XP SP2? I remember only one critical update that applies to XP SP2. All the rest applied to everything else.

Stating that Windows 2000 does not need to be patched is naive and foolish.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: STaSh

I'm sticking with 2k indefinitely, there is no virus or spyware to worry about, and the update to sp1,sp2, other silly patches is just another annoyance I do not need.

Denial is a beautiful thing, isn't it? You can FUD all you want, but XP SP2 is much less vulnerable to spyware and other exploits than any other version of Windows available. Of all the critical updates that have been released in since XP SP2 was released, how many applied to XP SP1 and lower (including 2000)? How many applied to XP SP2? I remember only one critical update that applies to XP SP2. All the rest applied to everything else.

Stating that Windows 2000 does not need to be patched is naive and foolish.

The sad thing is that even some corporations believe this. I was working at a client that refused to allow me to connect to their network with a XP laptop (fully patched). They believed that 2000 was more secure than XP. I had to install 2000 just to get a network connection.

 

[spyordie007]

good god; and than they wonder why their entire network gets infected with something 6 months down the road :roll:

 

[skyking]

man that is lame. They are for all intents and purposes built on the exact same framework. Spyware and viruses are equally at home in either
Oddly enough, the buggy old win98SE is much less attacked these days, and as a result, less likely to get compromised. Who'd a thunk that??
All those nasty worms that targetted xp/2k do not get after 98.

 

[batmang]

this thread deserves a huge lolcoptor.

no spyware in win2k? i work in a win2k based enviroment, ive never seen so much spyware.

winxp > any previous ms os.

2k may use less resources... but its .. slow. transfer a 4-5gb file in win2k, and then do that in winxp, tell me which one works better.

winxp has many little things about it that make it an awesome os. win2k blowsass compared to xp.... this thread is retarded.

 

[Booty]

Thank you, RobCur... I was feeling a little bit down today. After reading your completely misinformed and unfounded post, however, I am feeling quite good about myself. I know I'm not the smartest man alive, but it's always nice to be reminded that there are some intellectually inferior people out there.

I don't normally enjoy putting others down to make myself feel superior, but heck, you did it for me.

 

[naruto1988]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: RobCur
One of the best os released by ms...
1. uses less memory 64mb vs 128mb on xp

So? No one uses 64MB of ram these days in modern machines. Get over it.

2. perform 15-25 percent faster on games, application

Real world benchmarks for every application out there?

3. immune to most viruses

Bullshit.

4. immune to most spyware

Bullshit.

5. winxp needs to reboot at least once a day, 2k probably once a month at worst.

Bullshit.

you forgot to mention his "crisper and clearer" sound, roflcopter.

 

[rbrandon]

What this thread needs is a pair of LOLLERSKATES, followed by a fly-over of the ROFLCOPTER

 

[batmang]

and a LOLCOPTER reaction from the crowd.

 

[NumbaJuan]

someone in this thread needs to seek professional help

 

[Mogh]

If most PCs games would run under Linux I would dump MS altogether. If Microsoft did not abandon security on Win2k I would not be planning to place an order today for several OEM copies of XP Home.

I was one of the few that got infected by visiting a fairly popular site (register.co.uk) a month back during the few hours their banner ad company was hacked. Despite having all my MS patches up to date I got infected anyway but would not have if I was running Microsoft XP instead of 2000.

The exploit was all over the news and the internet from the beginning of November but Microsoft did not release a patch for Win2k until 12/1. (more fallout from incompetent IT managers having success in convincing MS only to release patches at the beginning of the month.)

 

[SilentRunning]

Originally posted by: NumbaJuan
someone in this thread needs to seek professional help

Shouldn't that be:

Someone in this thread needs to seek Windows XP Professional help?

 

[Satyrist]

Originally posted by: RobCur
One of the best os released by ms...
1. uses less memory 64mb vs 128mb on xp
2. perform 15-25 percent faster on games, application
3. immune to most viruses
4. immune to most spyware
5. winxp needs to reboot at least once a day, 2k probably once a month at worst.

I've been using xp for a year and I can say that its been nothing but headaches and disappointment.
overbloated, and its impossible to get rid of the many spyware that invade my computer at every reboot.
sound quality is so much better on 2k, crispier and louder..

1. O, K. Whatever. You do realize that you can turn a good deal of the bloat and eye candy off, right?

2. LOL.

3. LOLx239854235729358729835729385723589235.

4. LOLx9321854129357938571948567193485719432571923458712345.

5. LOLx2938527394871239587346918374958173459183247129384712938471293487. Are you sure you're not talking about win98 here?

If you're running an unpatched version of xp without any variety of antivirus or spyware removal tools, and you think you're immune to the horrors that can be found on the internet...Welp, I'd love to sample a bit of what you're smoking there.

Most hardware/software support is going to be phased over to become xp at some fairly distant point in the future, something else to think about.

In summary though....I LOL'D.

 

[rbrandon]

Originally posted by: Mogh
If most PCs games would run under Linux I would dump MS altogether. If Microsoft did not abandon security on Win2k I would not be planning to place an order today for several OEM copies of XP Home.

I was one of the few that got infected by visiting a fairly popular site (register.co.uk) a month back during the few hours their banner ad company was hacked. Despite having all my MS patches up to date I got infected anyway but would not have if I was running Microsoft XP instead of 2000.

The exploit was all over the news and the internet from the beginning of November but Microsoft did not release a patch for Win2k until 12/1. (more fallout from incompetent IT managers having success in convincing MS only to release patches at the beginning of the month.)

PWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH just what this thread needs, more FUD!

 

[Mogh]

Originally posted by: rbrandon

PWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH just what this thread needs, more FUD!

In other words Win2k is not more safe than XP as the OP had posted. Would you like to elaborate why you believe what I posted is FUD? Perhaps you can save us remaining W2k users a few bucks.