Those who tried both windows 2000 and windows xp which os do you like better?

[Derango]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: earthman
I marvel at what I hear sometimes. I have been running XP (home and pro) for over a year now on 4 very different hardware setups, without a single blue screen crash, and thats with 24 hour a day operation, running SETI all the time, as well as games, internet, etc., etc. I have only had a problem with one old program freezing up, but it dated from 1995. Just so you know I am not pro-MS, I have used Linux for years (since 96), and currently have two systems with SuSE 8.0. It is the most stable Linux I have run, but it is not as stable as WinXP, and certainly not more responsive. Maybe the 2.6 kernel will improve that. Redhat is a joke, I can't even get the last three versions to install on my current system...and the other systems I tried it on were easy to crash...just run some programs...heheh. Too bad they can't get it right.

You did something wrong.

The only linux machine I have had crash was due to crappy hardware or something I did on purpose.

Yea, I'm guessing this too. Or he's confusing a program crashing with the OS crashing. Two completly different things 🙂

 

[earthman]

I'm not confusing anything. When all the windows go blank, when the screen goes black, when the cursor won't move, when icons won't respond, when the terminal won't respond to input, I would say the OS has crashed. Even if it is a program at cause, it's not relevant, the OS should trap that event and not have it hang the system so work is lost. (Thats assuming you can actually get it installed. I saved the anacondadump text from last time I tried to install RedHat and it failed, you can see it if you want.) Linux, and I say this with affection, is a masterpiece of bad design and user-unfriendliness. X is a joke. Whats really great is you never know whats happening...I have never had it tell me an application has crashed or stopped responding, it just does something goofy. I can forgive the fact its not perfect, I mean, its made from a million pieces of stuff from here, there, and everywhere, but I don't like being told its my fault something doesn't work...thats a lame excuse. I also don't like to hear that its "crappy hardware" causing the problem, thats another cop out. I suppose if RedHat made cars that didn't work and you complained, they would just say you were a crappy driver driving on crappy roads using crappy gas. Heh.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: earthman
I'm not confusing anything. When all the windows go blank, when the screen goes black, when the cursor won't move, when icons won't respond, when the terminal won't respond to input, I would say the OS has crashed. Even if it is a program, it should trap that event and not have it lock the system up. Thats assuming you can actually get it installed. I saved the anacondadump text from last time I tried to install RedHat and it failed, you can see it if you want.

Sounds like X crashed. Could you ssh in or ping it? Either that, or crap harware/administration.

 

[earthman]

If you call an Athlon XP 2000 w/ECS K7S5A and 512 PC2100 DDR, Adaptec 29160 and 2930 controllers w/ 4 IBM ultra 160 server drives and 2 SCSI cdroms, and a Radeon 7500 and Soundblaster Live! crap hardware, well, I guess that explains it.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Those who tried both windows 2000 and windows xp which os do you like better?

Where on earth was Linux mentioned?

You can't start a thread about Windows without linux trolls (penguins?) showing up...
Like you can't start an nVidia thread without fanATics showing up...
Or indeed an Intel/AMD* thread without AMD/Intel* fanboys appearing.

:disgust::|:disgust:

Let's try something revolutionary and keep this thread on-topic.





*delete as applicable

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: earthman
If you call an Athlon XP 2000 w/ECS K7S5A and 512 PC2100 DDR, Adaptec 29160 and 2930 controllers w/ 4 IBM ultra 160 server drives and 2 SCSI cdroms, and a Radeon 7500 and Soundblaster Live! crap hardware, well, I guess that explains it.

Its possible anyone of those parts is bad. The e7s5a is not a great motherboard. Some Athlons have troublew ith AGP video cards. The ram may not be good. Linus has mentioned the SCSI parts of the kernel need some work. ATI's drivers for Linux are pretty new. It wouldnt surprise me if Creative had another bug in the Live! card with this chipset.

Anyhow, this is way off topic.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Those who tried both windows 2000 and windows xp which os do you like better?

Where on earth was Linux mentioned?

You can't start a thread about Windows without linux trolls (penguins?) showing up...
Like you can't start an nVidia thread without fanATics showing up...
Or indeed an Intel/AMD* thread without AMD/Intel* fanboys appearing.

:disgust::|:disgust:

Let's try something revolutionary and keep this thread on-topic.





*delete as applicable

I initially responded without mentioning a better OS. Be proud of me 🙂

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I initially responded without mentioning a better OS. Be proud of me 🙂

I'll let you off this once then
😉

It's just a general trend that annoys me somewhat...

 

[Anubis]

i had 200 SP3 runnin till yesterday and i loved it. Then i went and installed XP Pro SP1. Its about the same but has its problims liek all teh fluff. but when you you put it in classic mode its basically the same, so im gonna vot both but that might change sometime in the near future

 

[WeeWolf]

I vote Win2k sp3 for work and XP pro( or home wouldn't know haven't tried it) for home. I actually do prefer win2k but I have 2 identical boxes for a while I was running one XP and one win2k the 2k box would always be slightly choppier with a few games. Since upgrading it that went away. There are a lot of services in XP you should turn off but the 'fluff' is not exclusive to the overhead of the OS there are a bunch of extra services added between 2k and xp that I turned off. Still I'd rather have an option to turn off than no option at all.
Jim

 

[vash]

Between Windows 2000 + SP3 and Windows XP, I prefer the XP by far. It seems overal more responsive in opening windows, and giving me back a user response than any of my boxes with Windows 2000 (fast systems, too, lots of ram). XP's interface hasn't "blown" me away, but with some of my relatives using the newer interface and me having to support them, I must use it to know where things are for their boxes.

vash

 

[oniq]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Those who tried both windows 2000 and windows xp which os do you like better?

Where on earth was Linux mentioned?

You can't start a thread about Windows without linux trolls (penguins?) showing up...
Like you can't start an nVidia thread without fanATics showing up...
Or indeed an Intel/AMD* thread without AMD/Intel* fanboys appearing.

:disgust::|:disgust:

Let's try something revolutionary and keep this thread on-topic.



*delete as applicable

One of the poll responses was "Neither", thats why I responded.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AndyHui
Windows 2000 SP3

 

[ProviaFan]

Neither.

 

[watkins]

Win2k has been good to me. Using SP3 and have not seen a need to change to date.

 

[N11]

Though I primarily use Red Hat wherever possible, between Windows 2000 and Windows XP my choice is always Windows 2000. I'm interested to see the upcoming .NET server suite and server management utility snap-ins because the Windows 2000 admin packs are very impressive.

 

[civad]

I would vouch for Win2K ( though I had WinXP till recently: got rid of the last remains of Windows from my system finally 🙂)
It is reliable and fast!

Recently at my workplace someone asked me when did I have to last reboot my computer (Win 2K pro). I said...2 months???