Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Windows 2000 vs Xp
12
Windows 2000 vs Xp
2004-12-26, 6:32 PM #41
Yes.
Catloaf, meet mouseloaf.
My music
2004-12-26, 7:50 PM #42
Well I installed a version of Win 2k Advanced Server so I could make my computer another file server on my network... so far the performance is beyond acceptible.
2004-12-26, 9:28 PM #43
Quote:
Originally posted by oSiRiS
win2k has compatibility problems and is more prone to vulnerabilities. its mildly faster and lacks many of the more refined parts of XP such as the precaching everyone keeps talking about.

XP is better.


Compatibility Problems: Aside from DOS (which is aggarvating in XP also), what are you talking about?

Vunerabilities: I've yet to see a vulnerability that effected only Win2k and not XP. Almost all vulnerabilitys are related to IE anyway, not windows.

Prefetching isn't nearly as great as it sounds. First off, it doesn't improve speed very much. Second, it requires the system to do defragmentations on those prefetched files every time one of the files changes. On top of that, unless you change the setting, it will only do this every 3 days, totally losing the prefetch performance in the first place. And if you do bump the defrag time up, you'll end up with a system that is constantly defragging to keep the prefetch in order.
2004-12-26, 9:36 PM #44
Gentoo > *

>.<
2004-12-26, 9:49 PM #45
I've had fewer problems with XP than 98/2k, but that could also be because I'm running XP on my personal computer, while my experience with 98 and 2k were on 'family' computers. Anyone who has ever had to share a computer will most likely know what I mean.
12

↑ Up to the top!